Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Creationism vs Evolution

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Creationism vs Evolution Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 8:25:19 AM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3203
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?


Ah, but this is where we see it differently: I don't think a religious person (necessarily) chooses to ignore anything, but that they choose to believe in something, an off-shoot of which is a disregard for something else. So here, their faith in their religion outweighs their interest in the reality.




To say that a religious person chooses to ignore 'evidence' is bullshit at best. How do you explain the Arab scientists of old who made leaps and bound's in their chosen field's of science,mathematics, medicine and astronomy? That was made possible because of their faith which told them to embrace science, and evidence, not shun it!


To be believe in a divine creator you have to ignore evidence as evidently we evolved. That's ignoring evidence right there and also this Arab scientists were good at science becouse they practiced science, God didn't magically teleport them blueprints for a telescope, they created them through a scientific process, not a religious one.

_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 151
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 8:58:42 AM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3203
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. There's a lot of thing's in the evolutionist 'dogma' that still cannot be explained. And even evolutionist's have admitted this themselves. I've gone over these point's so many times, each time i've been faced with something which shows that there was intelligent design behind every living thing. So there is no way you can call something which has yet to realistically beproven as evidence! The ape to man thoery itself is full of discrepancies.

Life is so complex, even a single cell organism - that it could not have been created by mere chance. This has even confounded evolutionists today and many have admitted as much.


DNA mapping has all but proven that evolution by natural selection is scientific fact. The idea that there are gaps in our understanding of it lends absolutely no weight to the case for ID and to claim that it does is a logical fallacy. And to claim that any gaps in understanding mean that both theories remain equal is, quite frankly, nonsense.



No it hasn't! If anything DNA mapping has shown how complex life is - even more than the evolutionist's thought it was! It poses more question's, about the complexity of life!


It has answered questions though, scientific discovery is an ongoing process and once one question is answered another one takes it's place, it's called development.

Putting our existence down to a magic invisible deity isnt.


_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 152
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 9:10:20 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54597
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. There's a lot of thing's in the evolutionist 'dogma' that still cannot be explained. And even evolutionist's have admitted this themselves. I've gone over these point's so many times, each time i've been faced with something which shows that there was intelligent design behind every living thing. So there is no way you can call something which has yet to realistically beproven as evidence! The ape to man thoery itself is full of discrepancies.

Life is so complex, even a single cell organism - that it could not have been created by mere chance. This has even confounded evolutionists today and many have admitted as much.


DNA mapping has all but proven that evolution by natural selection is scientific fact. The idea that there are gaps in our understanding of it lends absolutely no weight to the case for ID and to claim that it does is a logical fallacy. And to claim that any gaps in understanding mean that both theories remain equal is, quite frankly, nonsense.



No it hasn't! If anything DNA mapping has shown how complex life is - even more than the evolutionist's thought it was! It poses more question's, about the complexity of life!


And science is the one that will always ask the questions because that's what science does.

This is the basic thing I never understand. Put simply, creationists take advantage of scientific language - the maths of uncertainty, the idea of 'theories', the avoidance of absolutes, the use of a hypothesis and what they do to prove it, words like 'likelihood'. They twist that idea of 'uncertainty' into a layman's version which has bog all to do with the original - either deliberately to deceive or because of ignorance. And then they call scientists the arrogant ones. Scientists who say 'we think - based on this evidence' rather than 'we absolutely know based on nothing but the fairytale we were told as kids'.

Pretending religious faith is a theory in the scientific sense is disingenuous to the extreme.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 153
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 10:49:08 AM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. There's a lot of thing's in the evolutionist 'dogma' that still cannot be explained. And even evolutionist's have admitted this themselves. I've gone over these point's so many times, each time i've been faced with something which shows that there is intelligent design behind every living thing. So there is no way you can call something which has yet to realistically beproven as evidence! The ape to man thoery itself is full of discrepancies.

Life is so complex, even a single cell organism - that it could not have been created by mere chance. This fact has even confounded evolutionists today and many have admitted as much.



Evolution is 'just' a theory but it's 'just' a theory versus 'nothing', there's not a single shred of evidence suggesting any other method in which we were created. Nothing, not a single thing.


And the, "It's just a theory," routine is where the creationists' argument really loses traction.

They use theory the way a detective in a movie uses the word theory: to describe any as yet unsubstantiated hunch or notion. That is not the way a scientist uses it, he'd use the word hypothesis to describe an untested concept such as our detective's "theory".

It is only after much testing and re-testing and peer review and more testing and more review that a hypothesis evolves into its mature form: an accepted theory. It is only the pragmatic nature of scientist and the scientific method: that he embraces the idea there is always the potential for new discoveries which might shake the core of scientific understanding that stops theories from being called incontrovertible truths.

When critics use the word theory as if it is some fragile little idea with no basis in truth they are (often wilfully) missing the point. Just because religious thinkers and philosophers throw around the word truth with gay abandon doesn't mean everyone else uses it with the same blasť attitude.

Scientists hold themselves to the highest level of critical thinking. If they didn't they wouldn't be fit to call themselves scientists. Religious zealots are more interested in dogmatic adherence to accepted "truths", use rhetoric rather than experimentation and hold to no critical standard but their own. That is why I will listen to the scientist rather than the preacher on questions of where we came from.

That doesn't preclude there being a God. Deviation proved that belief in God and acceptance of scientific explanations don't have to be mutually exclusive. If there is a God, at this point the scientists have a far better understanding of his methods than folk solely interested in religious explanations ever will.

Perhaps that is why they dislike scientists so much.

quote:

To be believe in a divine creator you have to ignore evidence as evidently we evolved. That's ignoring evidence right there and also this Arab scientists were good at science becouse they practiced science, God didn't magically teleport them blueprints for a telescope, they created them through a scientific process, not a religious one.


I can't agree with that statement. It isn't about ignoring evidence it is about how it is interpreted by the individual.

To believe in a divine creator all you need to do is take the view that God created the Big Bang and everything after that was his way of getting us to where we are now. By that rationale evolution becomes the method He made man rather than evidence He couldn't have.

I don't subscribe to that interpretation but don't find it as absurd as you seem to. In fact I find a certain beauty to it.

I find it hard to believe that God put everything in the Universe into motion, be it 14 billion or 6 thousand years ago. But then again I find it hard to believe everything in the Universe just sprang out of nothing one day.

I find both ideas incredible.

(in reply to BigKovacs)
Post #: 154
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 10:50:10 AM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20118
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
YAY, it's been a while since we had a good ol' fashioned Religious debate.

Fundamentalists and hardline atheists represent the extremes at both ends. When you read reviews on Amazon, the recommendation is to ignore the 1 and 5 star reviews, and the rest will be something accurate. Same thing here, essentially.

Interestingly both ends of the spectrum get their point of view from a literal interpretation of the bible. The one say, "look, this is how it happened". And the others say, "uh, actually, that's a little bit silly, look how silly your religion looks if you look at it literally, with your zombie saviour, etc". And yes, looked at in that light, it looks daft as a bag of hammers.

I've been reading CS Lewis' book Mere Christianity lately. Aside from a very dated chapter on marriage, etc, he makes some rather startlingly well-thought-out points regarding the idea of moral attitudes, and their genesis (lol word usage).

I think teaching creationism alongside evolution is very, very silly. I think most sane-minded Christians would agree. It's a representative way of looking at the world, at our origins. Talking snakes and evil apples are clearly not meant to be taken literally. It is an illustration, an illumination if you will, of the human condition. Free-will, choice, human spirit. From whence cometh these things?

If nothing else, the idea that it all comes down to chance and chemicals is really, really boring... But that's a whole other argument.

I don't talk about my faith very much, often because I struggle with it daily. Anyone who tells you differently is lying. But the world is a richer place for me for it.


_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 155
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 11:19:43 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8276
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

If nothing else, the idea that it all comes down to chance and chemicals is really, really boring... But that's a whole other argument.


I actually find it as amazing as anything that the Bible has; the possibility that given the right combination of chemicals, in the right environment, and with enough time and luck life can almost literally grow from nothing. That's fascinating to me. But I admit it lacks the poetry of the creation argument Having said that, with regard to the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, so little is understood at the moment that there's a point where even non-believers such as myself have to admit that 'God' is as valid an explanation as anything else, because it's all pure speculation. Doesn't mean I believe, just that in the absence of information about a unknowably mysterious event it can't be completely dismissed.


(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 156
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 11:27:54 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54597
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

I don't talk about my faith very much, often because I struggle with it daily. Anyone who tells you differently is lying. But the world is a richer place for me for it.



I think the worrying thing is that some of these people don't view their faith in that open and questioning way. I like to think it's the norm in the UK, though, and irrespective of what you think of religion if the people practicising it are good people and, as Adam said rightly above, see it as a personal faith not to be imposed on others, it's rude not to be careful when generalising about practitioners.

But some of these people do live in a world of absolutes. It's quite frightening to be looking in on that.

And ditto Superdan. Nature is a wonder to be marvelled at.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 157
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 11:40:50 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

And ditto Superdan. Nature is a wonder to be marvelled at.


Hi there, Terence Malick. I see you've taken over elab's account.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 158
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 11:42:42 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54597
Joined: 1/10/2005
Malick

My god is the BBC Natural History Unit.




_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 159
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 11:43:26 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8276
Joined: 31/7/2008
Does that still make Elab an enemy of film?

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 160
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 11:47:11 AM   
Rinc


Posts: 12835
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: A park bench, with a newspaper quilt

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

YAY, it's been a while since we had a good ol' fashioned Religious debate.

Fundamentalists and hardline atheists represent the extremes at both ends. When you read reviews on Amazon, the recommendation is to ignore the 1 and 5 star reviews, and the rest will be something accurate. Same thing here, essentially.

Interestingly both ends of the spectrum get their point of view from a literal interpretation of the bible. The one say, "look, this is how it happened". And the others say, "uh, actually, that's a little bit silly, look how silly your religion looks if you look at it literally, with your zombie saviour, etc". And yes, looked at in that light, it looks daft as a bag of hammers.


Surely hardline athiesm is only a reaction to fundamentalism? I know it shouldn't be a case of who started the argument, but if all Christians didn't take the Bible as literal, then athiests, and particulary hardline ones, wouldn't have to go around saying it's silly.

_____________________________

No spoilers please:

Invisiotext:
[ color=#F1F1F1 ]text[ /color ]

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 161
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 11:51:50 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54597
Joined: 1/10/2005
I think some of the most overt atheism is - and fear is a fair chunk of that too, I think. You look at a country like America where every politician needs to pay lip service to something to have a public voice and elects presidents who only sees himself as responsible for the faithful and it's frightening. Then you look at the more extreme groups here getting direct and indirect encouragement from the US model and increasingly trying to impose themselves on public life.

Like this Caleb foundation and the beginning of this discussion.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Rinc)
Post #: 162
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 11:59:04 AM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2326
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?


Ah, but this is where we see it differently: I don't think a religious person (necessarily) chooses to ignore anything, but that they choose to believe in something, an off-shoot of which is a disregard for something else. So here, their faith in their religion outweighs their interest in the reality.




To say that a religious person chooses to ignore 'evidence' is bullshit at best. How do you explain the Arab scientists of old who made leaps and bound's in their chosen field's of science,mathematics, medicine and astronomy? That was made possible because of their faith which told them to embrace science, and evidence, not shun it!


To be believe in a divine creator you have to ignore evidence as evidently we evolved. That's ignoring evidence right there and also this Arab scientists were good at science becouse they practiced science, God didn't magically teleport them blueprints for a telescope, they created them through a scientific process, not a religious one.


I have to disagree with that mate. I've read into this for a while, and a lot of Islamic scholar's have cited this aswell and most scholar's and professor's of today will be in agreement that one of the sole reason's the Arab's went through a renaissance, discoveries in the field of science and astronomy was because of Islam. Their scripture tell's them to 'Read', not take thing's at face value but to look at the evidence. Muslim's believe the Qur'an to be the word of God and hence you can say the Arab scientist's took inspiration from it. The Arab's before the advent of Islam were in the dark ages, tribe fighting against tribe and living life without any moral basis. The pre-Islamic Arab's were united, and brought forth from their ignorance via the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad. It (the teaching's) told them to explore, to question, to discover and hence we had the golden age of Islam.


They had been taught from a young age that religion and science is compatible. In fact their holy book (Qur'an) is full of scientific texts! It mention's the big bang, the expansion of the universe, and describes the ozone layer in exact detail, aswell as the developement of the foetus in the womb in exact stages. Aswell as many other scientific facts which science has found to be true -and they have yet to know how a man living in the desert 1400 plus year's ago could know about. The french scientist Maurice Bucaille wrote a book on this called 'The Qur'an, the bible and science'. And some of the thing's he has studied in regard's to science in the Qur'an is absolutely astonishing.

I urge anyone with an open mind to give it a read. It is proof that science and religion is indeed compatible. Today it is the people who due to extremist views (from both sides) shun science or religion without any real thought. So coming back to the original post, my point is that the Arab scientist's, astrologer's of old were inspired by their faith.

_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to BigKovacs)
Post #: 163
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 11:59:18 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Just because it's a reaction doesn't any better. The rise of Islamism is partly a reaction of the Arab dictatorships, doesn't make them any better for that.

The result is them sounding extremely obnoxious on ANYBODY who might have faith, which in the case of these atheists or secularists (not the others which actually took it to another murderous extreme, like Pol Pot, Stalin, the Reds during the Spanish Civil War, a certain Mexican government, etc...) is thankfully the worst thing I can say about them, and occasionally being intellectually crass, the other side can be even worse.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 7/7/2012 1:17:17 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Rinc)
Post #: 164
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:07:16 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54597
Joined: 1/10/2005
I don't think anyone is arguing they are incompatible - many modern scientists follow faiths of various sorts as well. But it is also a fact that religion has both passively and actively inhibited science through the centuries as well as limited the thinking of even some of the greatest scientists as their possibilities have been limited by their beliefs.

The part you are missing with the comment on some of the great Arabic scientists is that this didn't come out of nowhere - much of their work followed on from the classical work of earlier civilisations - in fact, via Muslim Spain, many lost works made their way back into Europe and latin translations. The empirical views of earlier scientists were practicised in the Arab world. There were some limits to what many were doing, however - the object of much of the work on maths and astronomy, e.g., was the need for an accurate calendar to aid worship, hence the symbiosis with religion.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 165
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:18:41 PM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2326
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Just because it's a reaction doesn't any better. The rise of Islamism is partly a reaction of the Arab dictatorships, doesn't make them any better for that.

The result is them sounding extremely obnoxious on ANYBODY who might have faith, which in the case of these atheists (not the others which actually took it to another murderous extreme, like Pol Pot, Stalin, the Resd during the Spanish Civil War, a certain Mexican government, etc...) is thankfully the worst thing I can say about them, and occasionally being intellectually crass, the other side can be even worse.


Later on you can say the decline of the Islamic golden age was due to the 'dictators' as you put it, and wealth and power and everything else that corrupt's. But i'm referring to the earlier period when the leader's/ Caliph's encouraged debate. They had learned scholar' from all religious back ground's, Jewish, Christian, agnostic in their circles, and they encouraged debate and the sharing of knowledge and sciences for the betterment of theirselves and their communities.

By the way, there is no such thing as 'Islam-ism', the correct term is just Islam.



_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 166
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:22:11 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8276
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I don't think anyone is arguing they are incompatible - many modern scientists follow faiths of various sorts as well. But it is also a fact that religion has both passively and actively inhibited science through the centuries as well as limited the thinking of even some of the greatest scientists as their possibilities have been limited by their beliefs.


Exactly. The term 'the Dark Ages' wasn't coined because the sun never shone.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 167
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:22:13 PM   
Nexus Wookie


Posts: 2326
Joined: 24/9/2011
From: the Godcity

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I don't think anyone is arguing they are incompatible - many modern scientists follow faiths of various sorts as well. But it is also a fact that religion has both passively and actively inhibited science through the centuries as well as limited the thinking of even some of the greatest scientists as their possibilities have been limited by their beliefs.

The part you are missing with the comment on some of the great Arabic scientists is that this didn't come out of nowhere - much of their work followed on from the classical work of earlier civilisations - in fact, via Muslim Spain, many lost works made their way back into Europe and latin translations. The empirical views of earlier scientists were practicised in the Arab world. There were some limits to what many were doing, however - the object of much of the work on maths and astronomy, e.g., was the need for an accurate calendar to aid worship, hence the symbiosis with religion.



Thank's for pointing that out Elab! The subject is so vast it's easy to forget a 'few' thing's!

_____________________________

My blog: http://nexuswookie.wordpress.com/

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 168
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:26:02 PM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3203
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

If nothing else, the idea that it all comes down to chance and chemicals is really, really boring... But that's a whole other argument.


I actually find it as amazing as anything that the Bible has; the possibility that given the right combination of chemicals, in the right environment, and with enough time and luck life can almost literally grow from nothing. That's fascinating to me. But I admit it lacks the poetry of the creation argument Having said that, with regard to the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, so little is understood at the moment that there's a point where even non-believers such as myself have to admit that 'God' is as valid an explanation as anything else, because it's all pure speculation. Doesn't mean I believe, just that in the absence of information about a unknowably mysterious event it can't be completely dismissed.




Well it can be completely dismissed becouse there's zero evidence to support such an argument.


_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 169
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:28:41 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5067
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
Where do these hardline clerics stand on unnecessary apostrophes?

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 170
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 12:40:24 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8276
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs


quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

If nothing else, the idea that it all comes down to chance and chemicals is really, really boring... But that's a whole other argument.


I actually find it as amazing as anything that the Bible has; the possibility that given the right combination of chemicals, in the right environment, and with enough time and luck life can almost literally grow from nothing. That's fascinating to me. But I admit it lacks the poetry of the creation argument Having said that, with regard to the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, so little is understood at the moment that there's a point where even non-believers such as myself have to admit that 'God' is as valid an explanation as anything else, because it's all pure speculation. Doesn't mean I believe, just that in the absence of information about a unknowably mysterious event it can't be completely dismissed.




Well it can be completely dismissed becouse there's zero evidence to support such an argument.



There's zero evidence to support anything when it comes to the cause of the Big Bang, or what existed before it. Everything prior to the Planck Epoch is pure guesswork, and as such 'God did it' is as valid a guess as anything else.

(in reply to BigKovacs)
Post #: 171
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:15:55 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

Later on you can say the decline of the Islamic golden age was due to the 'dictators' as you put it, and wealth and power and everything else that corrupt's. But i'm referring to the earlier period when the leader's/ Caliph's encouraged debate. They had learned scholar' from all religious back ground's, Jewish, Christian, agnostic in their circles, and they encouraged debate and the sharing of knowledge and sciences for the betterment of theirselves and their communities.


Sorry, I worded badly, I meant that being a reaction to something doesn't completely justify its problems, wasn't really referring to the Islamic Golden Age but the recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa.

quote:

By the way, there is no such thing as 'Islam-ism', the correct term is just Islam.


There is, and that is Islam is put in a political context and you have Muslims who don't really want that. You can argue that Islam is inherently political, but that is a different discussion not for here that would require me to know more about Islam.

quote:

the object of much of the work on maths and astronomy, e.g., was the need for an accurate calendar to aid worship, hence the symbiosis with religion.


Wasn't that always from the start though? I thought that the concept of ilm-um-abdan was always part of the teachings of the Qur'an and is accepted by all Muslims (and yes, I agree it was still limited, but it kept on where in Europe, it was erm...rather pitiful).

< Message edited by Deviation -- 7/7/2012 1:23:44 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 172
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:18:56 PM   
Larry of Arabia

 

Posts: 7576
Joined: 28/2/2007
From: Turtle Island

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

There's zero evidence to support anything when it comes to the cause of the Big Bang, or what existed before it. Everything prior to the Planck Epoch is pure guesswork, and as such 'God did it' is as valid a guess as anything else.


... and as a guess is subject to being completely dismissed.

_____________________________

"Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt."


(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 173
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:26:35 PM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3203
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs


quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

If nothing else, the idea that it all comes down to chance and chemicals is really, really boring... But that's a whole other argument.


I actually find it as amazing as anything that the Bible has; the possibility that given the right combination of chemicals, in the right environment, and with enough time and luck life can almost literally grow from nothing. That's fascinating to me. But I admit it lacks the poetry of the creation argument Having said that, with regard to the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, so little is understood at the moment that there's a point where even non-believers such as myself have to admit that 'God' is as valid an explanation as anything else, because it's all pure speculation. Doesn't mean I believe, just that in the absence of information about a unknowably mysterious event it can't be completely dismissed.




Well it can be completely dismissed becouse there's zero evidence to support such an argument.



There's zero evidence to support anything when it comes to the cause of the Big Bang, or what existed before it. Everything prior to the Planck Epoch is pure guesswork, and as such 'God did it' is as valid a guess as anything else.


God has to be proven to exist before claims can be made on its input in the universe. Seeing as no one has managed that it can be dismissed out of hand.

Also 'goddidit' is borderig on the absurd, the word God be interchanged with literally anything, Zeus, Cthulu, Katie Price, whatever.

_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 174
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:48:16 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs

Well it can be completely dismissed becouse there's zero evidence to support such an argument.



No.

You can only completely dismiss something when all possible avenues of investigation have been exhausted, and as new methods of investigation are discovered all the time that will probably never happen. Just because we haven't found evidence doesn't mean there isn't any out there to be found should we know where and how to look. Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.

The best you can say is, "There is currently no known evidence to support the argument so I reject it until such time as evidence is found." That is a totally rational approach and one I happen to subscribe to.

If I were to completely dismiss the remote possibility there was a creator I would be being as irrational as if I stated that God's existence was a matter of fact rather than an article of faith.

Faith, at least religious faith, is not a rational thing; whatever the evangelical brigade would like to think. It defies rational though, and flies in the face of it. While I do not possess it I am very respectful of those who do, and in general, outside of cultists and fanatics (I can't stand fanatics of any persuasion: religious, political or other), they tend to be normal decent people.

I believe in live and let live. If people choose to believe things I find slightly odd or slightly silly, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, where's the harm? I'm secure enough in my own beliefs to not need validation from science or religion for it not to matter.

(in reply to BigKovacs)
Post #: 175
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:50:17 PM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3203
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey
Exactly. So which is worse, the person that can't help but ignore the evidence or the person that actively chooses to?


Ah, but this is where we see it differently: I don't think a religious person (necessarily) chooses to ignore anything, but that they choose to believe in something, an off-shoot of which is a disregard for something else. So here, their faith in their religion outweighs their interest in the reality.




To say that a religious person chooses to ignore 'evidence' is bullshit at best. How do you explain the Arab scientists of old who made leaps and bound's in their chosen field's of science,mathematics, medicine and astronomy? That was made possible because of their faith which told them to embrace science, and evidence, not shun it!


To be believe in a divine creator you have to ignore evidence as evidently we evolved. That's ignoring evidence right there and also this Arab scientists were good at science becouse they practiced science, God didn't magically teleport them blueprints for a telescope, they created them through a scientific process, not a religious one.


I have to disagree with that mate. I've read into this for a while, and a lot of Islamic scholar's have cited this aswell and most scholar's and professor's of today will be in agreement that one of the sole reason's the Arab's went through a renaissance, discoveries in the field of science and astronomy was because of Islam. Their scripture tell's them to 'Read', not take thing's at face value but to look at the evidence. Muslim's believe the Qur'an to be the word of God and hence you can say the Arab scientist's took inspiration from it. The Arab's before the advent of Islam were in the dark ages, tribe fighting against tribe and living life without any moral basis. The pre-Islamic Arab's were united, and brought forth from their ignorance via the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad. It (the teaching's) told them to explore, to question, to discover and hence we had the golden age of Islam.


They had been taught from a young age that religion and science is compatible. In fact their holy book (Qur'an) is full of scientific texts! It mention's the big bang, the expansion of the universe, and describes the ozone layer in exact detail, aswell as the developement of the foetus in the womb in exact stages. Aswell as many other scientific facts which science has found to be true -and they have yet to know how a man living in the desert 1400 plus year's ago could know about. The french scientist Maurice Bucaille wrote a book on this called 'The Qur'an, the bible and science'. And some of the thing's he has studied in regard's to science in the Qur'an is absolutely astonishing.

I urge anyone with an open mind to give it a read. It is proof that science and religion is indeed compatible. Today it is the people who due to extremist views (from both sides) shun science or religion without any real thought. So coming back to the original post, my point is that the Arab scientist's, astrologer's of old were inspired by their faith.


Bucaille was a GP, not a scientist and 'The Bible, the Qur'an and Science' is subjective and inaccurate. I suggest you keep reading.

Also I didn't say that people's faith didn't inspire them to learn, I said that science deserves the credit as that's actually how these discoveries were made, through the process of science. And as was pointed out earlier, faith is fickle when it comes to science, it only courts it when it needs it and shuns it the rest of the time.

As for science and religion being compatable, just... no. By their definitions they are totally different, opposite in fact. One deals with evidence and one deals in faith, they share nothing, have nothing in common and have nothing to offer each other. They coexist but so does physics and Harry Potter, it doesn't mean that the two should mix.

_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to Nexus Wookie)
Post #: 176
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 1:52:17 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8276
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: Larry Of Arabia
... and as a guess is subject to being completely dismissed.


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs
God has to be proven to exist before claims can be made on its input in the universe. Seeing as no one has managed that it can be dismissed out of hand.


Which would be pointless, as there is no evidence of anything else either, at all. There is no better or worse argument. You can simply dismiss it of course (as indeed I would be inclined to do), but doing so in this instance does little other than to merely demonstrate a certain prejudicial stance. There is no proof of anything when it comes to the principle start of the Universe, unlike evolution etc.

quote:


Also 'goddidit' is borderig on the absurd, the word God be interchanged with literally anything, Zeus, Cthulu, Katie Price, whatever.


'God' is just a word obviously, the point was more to do with what it represents.



(in reply to BigKovacs)
Post #: 177
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 2:20:13 PM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs

Well it can be completely dismissed becouse there's zero evidence to support such an argument.



No.

You can only completely dismiss something when all possible avenues of investigation have been exhausted, and as new methods of investigation are discovered all the time that will probably never happen. Just because we haven't found evidence doesn't mean there isn't any out there to be found should we know where and how to look. Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.

The best you can say is, "There is currently no known evidence to support the argument so I reject it until such time as evidence is found." That is a totally rational approach and one I happen to subscribe to.

If I were to completely dismiss the remote possibility there was a creator I would be being as irrational as if I stated that God's existence was a matter of fact rather than an article of faith.

Faith, at least religious faith, is not a rational thing; whatever the evangelical brigade would like to think. It defies rational though, and flies in the face of it. While I do not possess it I am very respectful of those who do, and in general, outside of cultists and fanatics (I can't stand fanatics of any persuasion: religious, political or other), they tend to be normal decent people.

I believe in live and let live. If people choose to believe things I find slightly odd or slightly silly, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, where's the harm? I'm secure enough in my own beliefs to not need validation from science or religion for it not to matter.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.

I'm not sure I totally agree but it's an elegant quote.
God is a theory for which there is no evidence. Some choose to believe that the Cosmological Argument (First Cause) is evidence enough but I'm inclined to disagree.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 178
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 3:42:04 PM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3203
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs

Well it can be completely dismissed becouse there's zero evidence to support such an argument.



No.

You can only completely dismiss something when all possible avenues of investigation have been exhausted, and as new methods of investigation are discovered all the time that will probably never happen. Just because we haven't found evidence doesn't mean there isn't any out there to be found should we know where and how to look. Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.


Which brings up Russels Teapot, we can all, quite rightly claim that absolutely anything started the universe.

quote:

The best you can say is, "There is currently no known evidence to support the argument so I reject it until such time as evidence is found." That is a totally rational approach and one I happen to subscribe to.


That's fair enough.

quote:

If I were to completely dismiss the remote possibility there was a creator I would be being as irrational as if I stated that God's existence was a matter of fact rather than an article of faith.

Faith, at least religious faith, is not a rational thing; whatever the evangelical brigade would like to think. It defies rational though, and flies in the face of it. While I do not possess it I am very respectful of those who do, and in general, outside of cultists and fanatics (I can't stand fanatics of any persuasion: religious, political or other), they tend to be normal decent people.


I agree but when people claim that humanity and the universe around us was created by a supreme being they've entered debate based on reason and evidence, if they like it or not.

_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 179
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 7/7/2012 3:44:19 PM   
Ref


Posts: 7461
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Leicester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs

Well it can be completely dismissed becouse there's zero evidence to support such an argument.



No.

You can only completely dismiss something when all possible avenues of investigation have been exhausted, and as new methods of investigation are discovered all the time that will probably never happen. Just because we haven't found evidence doesn't mean there isn't any out there to be found should we know where and how to look. Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.

The best you can say is, "There is currently no known evidence to support the argument so I reject it until such time as evidence is found." That is a totally rational approach and one I happen to subscribe to.

If I were to completely dismiss the remote possibility there was a creator I would be being as irrational as if I stated that God's existence was a matter of fact rather than an article of faith.

Faith, at least religious faith, is not a rational thing; whatever the evangelical brigade would like to think. It defies rational though, and flies in the face of it. While I do not possess it I am very respectful of those who do, and in general, outside of cultists and fanatics (I can't stand fanatics of any persuasion: religious, political or other), they tend to be normal decent people.

I believe in live and let live. If people choose to believe things I find slightly odd or slightly silly, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, where's the harm? I'm secure enough in my own beliefs to not need validation from science or religion for it not to matter.


This so much this. I am a liberal Catholic (it's a strange combination, but it works) and I believe in God but also the Big Bang and evolution. I find it strange when many people think that you have to be one or the other, why limit yourself? Have a bit of both.


_____________________________

Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...

Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week

Icon created by the talented JaD

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Creationism vs Evolution Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094