Creationism vs. Evolution

[leegao]

Quote by: gallo Well, either you belive in superstitious nonsense from a book of mythology or you don't.

And that’s how this round will continue to do so infinitely because neither constitutes any impact to the other whatsoever.

Quote by: gallo It would also be nice if we can win an argument by merely stating that you have the definition of a subject word wrong but refuse to go into how it has an impact on the point. Now you are trying to be intentionally ignorant.

Please explain how.

Quote by: gallo So you are basically ignorant of science. What's new. How many sources do you want? I didn't quote some unknown authority. I told you what I know, as an evolutionary biologist, to be the definition of the word "theory" in science. Please educate yourself before you speak. You make yourself look foolish when you argue from ignorance. There is no "author" of my definition. It is generally accepted among scientists. If you don't understand that the definition of a scientific theory is not the same as you use with your friends in the boys room at your middle school, then you need to educate yourself before you speak.

First of all when have I ever said I didn’t accept what the definition of a theory is? Please go through all my post and see where I have explicitly stated that I’m negating your definition of “theory.” Secondly, let’s not go into personal contentions here. Thirdly the smugness of your tone tells me that you have this pretense that you were never “ignorant” before in your life since you’re immune to that ignorance. Now I’ve been playing this debate solely on your grounds, the problem is there’s multiple grounds in this debate. The sole fact that you believe that someone else is ignorant of science is relative. Of course, I’m pretty sure it’s in your most honorable intention to play down a 16 year old and call him uneducated and make him insecure yet despite all efforts you’ve never even tried to go deep into what other’s points are, so let me reiterate this for you one more time.

The fact that the pro-creationists and the pro-evolutionists throw out arguments that doesn’t stick with the other side necessitates that we give one ground precedence over the other. For example:

Presuming that we’re talking about reality and not some theoretical universe

Taking in the premise that empiricism can be observed in reality time and time again whereas superstitious “miracles” found in the “divine books” are only observed rarely and are often able to be explained through empirical means it’s natural that empiricism should take precedence over superstition, therefore the best ground to uphold in this debate should be empiricism thus all arguments regarding this topic will have absolutely no impact unless it can always come back to empiricism.

And dude, I’m in Highschool…

[Jack]

No I mean until you can establish why empiricism is the best ground to uphold in this debate.

May I recommend a re-reading of the opening post in this thread? It may have disintegrated into an unstructured free-for-all on the topic, but it began with very specific points to be debated.

[Matt]

I'm not educated on BOTH sides of this debate, so I'm not getting that involved in it.

I just wanted to state one thing. There are probably thousands of people on this earth who can communicate with deceased animals and humans. There are so many cases of people being able to talk to their dead relatives/family/friend/pets either directly or through an animal/human communicator. I don't think people can discredit all these people, including myself, who have talked to deceased animals/humans. So IMO it does prove there is some sort of an after life if animals/humans can communicate to someone on earth after they have died.

If any one is interested in reading more about this, I'd suggest looking at "Animals and the Afterlife" by Kim Sheridan.

Matt

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood May I recommend a re-reading of the opening post in this thread? It may have disintegrated into an unstructured free-for-all on the topic, but it began with very specific points to be debated.

I have noticed that nearly all topics grow branches for side debates, but they seem connected to the original trunk (OP). Sometimes they evolve into a totally new debate, but still carry the DNA of the O.P.

I think that is called "descent with modification" - hmm? Sounds like a difinition for evolution.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: leegao And that’s how this round will continue to do so infinitely because neither constitutes any impact to the other whatsoever. Please explain how. First of all when have I ever said I didn’t accept what the definition of a theory is? Please go through all my post and see where I have explicitly stated that I’m negating your definition of “theory.” Secondly, let’s not go into personal contentions here. Thirdly the smugness of your tone tells me that you have this pretense that you were never “ignorant” before in your life since you’re immune to that ignorance. Now I’ve been playing this debate solely on your grounds, the problem is there’s multiple grounds in this debate. The sole fact that you believe that someone else is ignorant of science is relative. Of course, I’m pretty sure it’s in your most honorable intention to play down a 16 year old and call him uneducated and make him insecure yet despite all efforts you’ve never even tried to go deep into what other’s points are, so let me reiterate this for you one more time. The fact that the pro-creationists and the pro-evolutionists throw out arguments that doesn’t stick with the other side necessitates that we give one ground precedence over the other. For example: Presuming that we’re talking about reality and not some theoretical universe Taking in the premise that empiricism can be observed in reality time and time again whereas superstitious “miracles” found in the “divine books” are only observed rarely and are often able to be explained through empirical means it’s natural that empiricism should take precedence over superstition, therefore the best ground to uphold in this debate should be empiricism thus all arguments regarding this topic will have absolutely no impact unless it can always come back to empiricism. And dude, I’m in Highschool…

How did that happen? I was under the impression that our educational system was not producing intelligent people like yourself. They must have forgotten to tell you not to think for your self.

[leegao]

I guess isherwood is right, my point doesn't really hold any relevance with regards on the debate, yet I was just making an observation on how it has been progressing. As every time when we do any religion vs science discussion it always wound up with the same redundant argument struggling to make it through to the other side. Since it never does we came to first debate out whether logic or religion should be the best value to uphold (we're in LD) and thereafter the debate went smoothly.

@ your second post, I'm not sure how to respond since I can't tell if you're been sarcastic or not.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: leegao I guess isherwood is right, my point doesn't really hold any relevance with regards on the debate, yet I was just making an observation on how it has been progressing. As every time when we do any religion vs science discussion it always wound up with the same redundant argument struggling to make it through to the other side. Since it never does we came to first debate out whether logic or religion should be the best value to uphold (we're in LD) and thereafter the debate went smoothly. @ your second post, I'm not sure how to respond since I can't tell if you're been sarcastic or not.

If this post is intended for me, I was not trying to be sarcastic but multi-viewing a diversity of ideas that occured in my mind. Sorry if I was miss-understood.

Your observations about how these kinds of debates unfold is right-on. I have noticed the same thing. There is hardly no way to prevent the predictable outcomes of this topic when it is debated. That is easy to tell because of all the pages so far being submitted here in this debate.

As I noted an Intelligent Designer is a mind, it is Consciousness. We can experience conscoiusness but have no scientific method to find out where it is, or what it is composed of.

Death causes life and life causes death, this circular pattern goes around and around it's center of relative stillness, evolving outwardly form that center which is also the source point. I can vision this, I can use the theory of relavitity to illustrate it, I can use the Bible to confirm it, but I cannot cause anyone else to drink of this vision if they are unwilling to do so. People will just say I do not understand the Bible or that I do not understand science.

[Kite]

Quote by: Matt I'm not educated on BOTH sides of this debate, so I'm not getting that involved in it. I just wanted to state one thing. There are probably thousands of people on this earth who can communicate with deceased animals and humans. There are so many cases of people being able to talk to their dead relatives/family/friend/pets either directly or through an animal/human communicator. I don't think people can discredit all these people, including myself, who have talked to deceased animals/humans. So IMO it does prove there is some sort of an after life if animals/humans can communicate to someone on earth after they have died. If any one is interested in reading more about this, I'd suggest looking at "Animals and the Afterlife" by Kim Sheridan. Matt

I really don't see this as having anything to do with creationism or evolution, but let me postulate.

I'm guessing that you think that since there is an afterlife then there is a god, yes? However why does there need to be any kind of deity for there to be an afterlife? Maybe it has always been there just like everything else. Maybe its just a figment of peoples imaginations. An afterlife need not prove or disprove the existence of any god.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kite I really don't see this as having anything to do with creationism or evolution, but let me postulate. I'm guessing that you think that since there is an afterlife then there is a god, yes? However why does there need to be any kind of deity for there to be an afterlife? Maybe it has always been there just like everything else. Maybe its just a figment of peoples imaginations. An afterlife need not prove or disprove the existence of any god.

Hmm, perhaps I can channel Darwin through my cat and find out?

Aha... I am getting some feed - back.... it is coming in clear now....

Dawin said meeow. Hmm? what does that mean?

M over EE = Ow. Must be some new theory or something....

Okay... I am just clowing around so don't get all upset or offended.

[Matt]

Quote by: Kite I really don't see this as having anything to do with creationism or evolution, but let me postulate. I'm guessing that you think that since there is an afterlife then there is a god, yes? However why does there need to be any kind of deity for there to be an afterlife? Maybe it has always been there just like everything else. Maybe its just a figment of peoples imaginations. An afterlife need not prove or disprove the existence of any god.

Yes, you are correct. Why would there be an afterlife if there wasn't a God? Why would an afterlife be created be evolution? It couldn't IMO.

Some animals/humans that are up there having an afterlife, describe to animal/human communicators down on earth where they are and what it looks like.The way they describe sounds exactley like the way the Bible described Heaven. They also sometimes talk about God and Angels.

And also what about NDE (Near Death Experiences). People explain feeling very peaceful, floating up, and a very strong light. They usually see their deceased pets/relatives up there, and sometimes Angels. And no, those are not dreams.

[Kite]

Quote by: Matt Yes, you are correct. Why would there be an afterlife if there wasn't a God? Why would an afterlife be created be evolution? It couldn't IMO. Some animals/humans that are up there having an afterlife, describe to animal/human communicators down on earth where they are and what it looks like.The way they describe sounds exactley like the way the Bible described Heaven. They also sometimes talk about God and Angels. And also what about NDE (Near Death Experiences). People explain feeling very peaceful, floating up, and a very strong light. They usually see their deceased pets/relatives up there, and sometimes Angels. And no, those are not dreams.

My point was that evolution and afterlife have nothing to do with each other, and that there doesn't necessarily need to be a God for there to be an afterlife. Also, the fact that the descriptions mirror what heaven is described as may just be the dead interpreting paradise the way that it was told it would be for them. Perhaps paradise is different for everyone. Death my very well be subject to interpretation by the brain.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt Yes, you are correct. Why would there be an afterlife if there wasn't a God? Why would an afterlife be created be evolution? It couldn't IMO. Some animals/humans that are up there having an afterlife, describe to animal/human communicators down on earth where they are and what it looks like.The way they describe sounds exactley like the way the Bible described Heaven. They also sometimes talk about God and Angels. And also what about NDE (Near Death Experiences). People explain feeling very peaceful, floating up, and a very strong light. They usually see their deceased pets/relatives up there, and sometimes Angels. And no, those are not dreams.

In my study on paranormal science we came up with logical answers for the near death experience.

The brain contains a pleasure zone that can be activated in times of great danger or near death. Which can cause those lights so mentioned.
Science can duplicate it with electric stemulation to that part of the brain.

Next, people often experience a flash back on their life when they think they are dieing. That can cause a flash back to the birthing process where an infant moves through the tunnel towards the bright hospital lights, upon birth the infant is greeted by parents and doctors wearing robes such as the kind Jesus or saints are pictured as having worn (white smocks). They might be greeted with warmth from their mother.

The after-death experience might be a flashback to the birth experience because they are about the same thing.

That is one idea we might explain things.

[Matt]

Quote by: Kite My point was that evolution and afterlife have nothing to do with each other, and that there doesn't necessarily need to be a God for there to be an afterlife. Also, the fact that the descriptions mirror what heaven is described as may just be the dead interpreting paradise the way that it was told it would be for them. Perhaps paradise is different for everyone. Death my very well be subject to interpretation by the brain.

Since there is an afterlife (I don't think people can deny that), then IMO that proves there is a God. Afterlife and evolution do have things to do with each other, if afterlife is real (which it is) then evolution can not be true. Why would evolution create an afterlife? It couldn't...and it wouldn't.

Quote by: Technosoul In my study on paranormal science we came up with logical answers for the near death experience. The brain contains a pleasure zone that can be activated in times of great danger or near death. Which can cause those lights so mentioned. Science can duplicate it with electric stemulation to that part of the brain. Next, people often experience a flash back on their life when they think they are dieing. That can cause a flash back to the birthing process where an infant moves through the tunnel towards the bright hospital lights, upon birth the infant is greeted by parents and doctors wearing robes such as the kind Jesus or saints are pictured as having worn (white smocks). They might be greeted with warmth from their mother. The after-death experience might be a flashback to the birth experience because they are about the same thing. That is one idea we might explain things.

Good point. And I agree that that probably is the reason is some cases, but not all.

[Halofan48]

Since there is an afterlife (I don't think people can deny that), then IMO that proves there is a God. Afterlife and evolution do have things to do with each other, if afterlife is real (which it is) then evolution can not be true. Why would evolution create an afterlife? It couldn't...and it wouldn't.

The thing is, there is no real proof of an afterlife. The testimonies of people who claim to see an afterlife at near death experiences can be explained in other ways. I've had one near death experience. I was going down a steep hill on my scooter, when the handle bar fell out. I hit head first into the street and skidded about 30 feet. I had the weird flash back thing to my life. I had lost all of my front teeth (which are now all fake). No bright light at the end of the tunnel, no fiery prison. No dead family members (except for the memories of then, like at parties and such, in the flashback thing). My mom also has had one. She was on board a boat a few years back and some part of the boat (don't remember what though) had exploded. She suffered serious burns all over her body and was in agony. Again, flashback, no light or fire.

So no, i don't think theres an afterlife. It just ends. Impossible to imagine it, sad and depressing, but what i think is true. An afterlife is really just a way people comfort themselves when faced with death

[Jack]

Since there is an afterlife (I don't think people can deny that)

I can and do. What conclusive evidence exists to contradict a disbelief in an afterlife?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Matt Since there is an afterlife (I don't think people can deny that), then IMO that proves there is a God. Afterlife and evolution do have things to do with each other, if afterlife is real (which it is) then evolution can not be true. Why would evolution create an afterlife? It couldn't...and it wouldn't.

Ehh... Evolution isn't meant by no way to explain afterlife, so I'm afraid you cannot disprove it by saying it doesn't explain your...thing.
In other words: YOU'RE JUST PLAIN OFF-TOPIC DUDE!

Quote by: Matt Good point. And I agree that that probably is the reason is some cases, but not all.

What a flawful statement. Where is rigor nowaday? It is just another phenomeon we no longer need god to explain. I know, it's pretty sad. I'd like to have candies for eternity when I die as well, but what we're hoping for isn't worthy of a debate.

[Matt]

Quote by: Halofan48 The thing is, there is no real proof of an afterlife. The testimonies of people who claim to see an afterlife at near death experiences can be explained in other ways. I've had one near death experience. I was going down a steep hill on my scooter, when the handle bar fell out. I hit head first into the street and skidded about 30 feet. I had the weird flash back thing to my life. I had lost all of my front teeth (which are now all fake). No bright light at the end of the tunnel, no fiery prison. No dead family members (except for the memories of then, like at parties and such, in the flashback thing). My mom also has had one. She was on board a boat a few years back and some part of the boat (don't remember what though) had exploded. She suffered serious burns all over her body and was in agony. Again, flashback, no light or fire. So no, i don't think theres an afterlife. It just ends. Impossible to imagine it, sad and depressing, but what i think is true. An afterlife is really just a way people comfort themselves when faced with death

So in other words, you believe the thousands of people who have talked to deceased animals/humans are just lying...or somehow are just not seeing things correctly?

Quote by: Isherwood I can and do. What conclusive evidence exists to contradict a disbelief in an afterlife?

Thousands of people who have talked to deceased animals/humans have proven that there is an afterlife, by merely communicating with them after their death. Read that book I suggested, I'm sure you can get it at your library.

Quote by: nerdvincent Ehh... Evolution isn't meant by no way to explain afterlife, so I'm afraid you cannot disprove it by saying it doesn't explain your...thing. In other words: YOU'RE JUST PLAIN OFF-TOPIC DUDE! What a flawful statement. Where is rigor nowaday? It is just another phenomeon we no longer need god to explain. I know, it's pretty sad. I'd like to have candies for eternity when I die as well, but what we're hoping for isn't worthy of a debate.

No, but don't evolutionists believe there isn't a God? So an afterlife couldn't be there if there wasn't a God. I'm not off topic.

[Halofan48]

So in other words, you believe the thousands of people who have talked to deceased animals/humans are just lying...or somehow are just not seeing things correctly?

There a good chunk that are simply lying, yes. The others may have a mental disorder, maybe they are under the effects of a drug, there are multiple possibilities. But yes, i think that anyone who claims they can do these things are false. Most just want to make a buck.

No, but don't evolutionists believe there isn't a God? So an afterlife couldn't be there if there wasn't a God. I'm not off topic.

Nope, not all of them. Many believe there is a god. I don't but they are there.

[Matt]

Quote by: Halofan48 There a good chunk that are simply lying, yes. The others may have a mental disorder, maybe they are under the effects of a drug, there are multiple possibilities. But yes, i think that anyone who claims they can do these things are false. Most just want to make a buck. Nope, not all of them. Many believe there is a god. I don't but they are there.

Most of these people are just everyday people, and they don't make a buck off it. I can agree probably 25% are lying. But the other 75%, no. It is ignorant to think all those people are lying or have a mental problem. I don't have a mental problem, I'm not on drugs...and I'm not lying when I say I believe I talked to my deceased dog. There are very convincing stories out there, and until you read some of them, I don't think you have a right to say they are false.

[Halofan48]

for some they are convincing, for others, no. You may have been convinced, but i have not.