Creationism vs. Evolution

[Fonceai]

You are trying to argue something that can't be argued.

You can't argue your personal belief with another person, because their own personal belief isn't going to change.

Academically, there is only one correct answer on the issue, for now. And that isn't going to change either.

Keep your citings and evidence simple and avoid the analogies, and you'll make a stronger case for yourself.

The problem with arguing about anything related to God is that if you personally believe it true or false but also understand that empirically there is nothing conclusive, you'll always be arguing the "right" side as long as you don't cross your conclusive personal opinion with the actual empirical one.

[Captain Chaos]

And...

I am sorry for derailing. However, the condescending tone of some repliers made it necessary to keep replying.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai You are trying to argue something that can't be argued.

What is it that you think I am trying to argue for?

[underbear1]

Creationists can believe anything they choose, they can believe God hid dinsaurers bones just to screw with their heads, I don't give a damn what they BELIEVE, just don't attempt to pawn that off as Science.

[gallo]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Gallo, this is not complicated.

You are correct. The question is why you are trying to make it so.

Quote by: Captain Chaos I am arguing over the definition of the word evidence. Do you understand that? You and I agree on the fact that the supposed eye-witness accounts in the Bible are bogus.

Nope. I reviewed what you have been arguing and that isn't it. Your single assertion is that the Bible is evidence for the existence of god.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Before I take this any further, do you understand that one simple concept. That I am currently merely debating with you the meaning of the word evidence?

If that is what you are going to do from now on, then OK. Change the subject. Until now, that is not what you have been doing. Perhaps your thinking is so muddled that you believe that you were doing that. But you weren't. Nowhere did you discuss the meaning of the word. You asserted that the Bible is evidence of god. I told you that it is only evidence that some people believe in god.

Please stop and think before you speak. If you wish to argue definitions, then do so

Quote by: Captain Chaos It is evidence that some people claimed to have interacted with God.

Sure it is. Pay attention now. See if you can grasp this. I never said that it was not evidence of what some people claimed. In fact, that is precisely what I was claiming. The Bible is evidence that some people believe in god and claim to have interacted with god. It is not evidence of god as you have been claiming.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Personally, I think that evidence is bogus. It is not non-existant evidence, it is bogus evidence.

Then it is not evidence.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Please tell me, do you comprehend the difference between the concept of weak evidence and the concept of nonexistent evidence?

I do, but it is clear that you do not. "Peter Rabbit" is not evidence that rabbits can talk. The Iliad is not evidence that Zeus exists. The Aeneid is not evidence that Jupiter exists. They are not "weak" evidence - they are not bogus evidence - they are not evidence. Perhaps it is because I am used to thinking about evidence in relation to reality rather than fantasy.

Now if you wish to discuss the meaning of the word evidence, then by all means do so. But at least make your statements pertinent to that topic. Do you understand what a definition is?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Gallo Your single assertion is that the Bible is evidence for the existence of god.

So....

You also missed the part where I asserted it was crappy evidence, right? I believe that, as evidence for God goes, the Bible can be dismissed as not believable. That does not mean it does not exist, and that people do not regard it as evidence, just that it is, in Isherwood's words "the worst sort of evidence."

Perhaps your thinking is so muddled that you believe that you were doing that.

Rudeness is a substitute for inadequate debate, on both of our parts.

Nowhere did you discuss the meaning of the word.

Oh really:

Quote by: Chaos Some people believe the Bible includes first hand accounts of events that actually happened. Would you consider an eyewitness account a form of evidence?

Gee, that sounds like I was discussing an event (eyewitness accounts) that falls within the set of events defined as "evidence"

Quote by: Chaos The Bible is supposed to be a historical account of what Jesus and other God dudes did. Thus, it is historical evidence. Very flawed evidence, but still evidence.

Hey, wow - that sounds like I was discussing historical accounts as a type of evidence - one subset of the larger set defined as "evidence"

Quote by: Chaos I deliberately used something ridiculous as an example. My point is that, no matter how weak a bit of evidence may be, it is not the same thing as non-existent. Do you understand the difference?

Oh my goodness - now that sounds like I was discussing the difference between very weak evidence and non-existant evidence - an example of trying to expound upon the concept of "evidence"

Quote by: Chaos My point about evidence is that it is dishonest to say that there is no evidence for a thing, when millions of people worhsip based on what they consider evidence. The Bible is the evidence that Christian's rely upon.

Holy cow, yet another example - in this one, I was using an example to show that 'evidence' is something people use upon which to form a belief.

Quote by: Chaos To say there is no evidence for creationism is false. One should instead say that the evidence for creationism is all mythological, and thus not believable. Poor evidence, rather than non existent.

Holy goose pimples! Yet another example of me trying to expound upon the difference between poor evidence and non-existant evidence.


Gee Gallo, it looks like I have been trying to explain since we got derailed that what is meant by "evidence" includes things that would not, to you and I, constitute believable evidence. Perhaps your thinking is a bit muddled on this issue.

Quote by: Gallo Sure it is. Pay attention now. See if you can grasp this. I never said that it was not evidence of what some people claimed. In fact, that is precisely what I was claiming. The Bible is evidence that some people believe in god and claim to have interacted with god. It is not evidence of god as you have been claiming.

Pay attention now, see if you can grasp a little basic English.

Quote by: American Heritage Dictionary ev·i·dence (v-dns) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "evidence" [P] n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Note definition #1 there: A thing or things useful of forming a conclusion or judgement. Now, I know, from debating with Christians, that many of them find the Bible useful in forming the conclusion that God exists.

So, tell me, how does that not meet the definition of "evidence".


To go further, I will quote from dictionary.com, where they are explaining the legal use of the word "evidence":

Quote by: Dictionary.com Evidence is any information so given, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from any other source: Hearsay evidence is not admitted in a trial.

Get it now?

Quote by: Gallo "Peter Rabbit" is not evidence that rabbits can talk.

Right, because no one is using it to reach such a conclusion.

The Iliad is not evidence that Zeus exists.

Right, because no one is using it to reach such a conclusion.

The Aeneid is not evidence that Jupiter exists.

Right, because no one is using it to reach such a conclusion.

Perhaps it is because I am used to thinking about evidence in relation to reality rather than fantasy.

This is because we believe, prior to entering into such a debate, that Jupiter, Zeus, and Peter Rabbit are fantasy. Although you and I believe the Christian God to be a fantasy, many of those with whom you will debate to not believe so. The believe Jesus' dad to be reality, and the evidence they use to support that belief is the Bible.

Now if you wish to discuss the meaning of the word evidence, then by all means do so. But at least make your statements pertinent to that topic. Do you understand what a definition is?

Yeah. Do you? Because, see, I have shown quite precisely here how the Bible meets at least one definition of the word "evidence". I have also shown, quite precisely, how for this entire derailment I have been attempting to expound upon what things fall within the category "evidence".



We are getting quite rude to each other. I am basically attempting to match you tit for tat, in hopes that you will see how annoying that is. Are you willing to return to civil debate? I will if you will.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Underbear Now if you wish to discuss the meaning of the word evidence, then by all means do so. But at least make your statements pertinent to that topic. Do you understand what a definition is?

It is my understanding that some Christians claim to make predictions from creationism. Do any of you guys know what predictions they are talking about?

[gallo]

Quote by: kubedawg Evidence does not mean 100% absolute proof.

No one said that it did. Have you been paying attention?

Quote by: kubedawg But, lack of evidence does not mean 100% absolute incorrect.

Right. As the expression goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But then, no one has been saying that either.

Quote by: kubedawg Therefore there is no way to prove creationism, no way to disprove it.

While it is true that there is not way to prove creationism, because there is no evidence that any creationist claim is true, the converse is not true. Because creationists make overt claims about creationism, and because the assumption of creationism has certain necessary consequences, it is only necessary to show that the assertions are wrong and that the consequences do not exist. Both have been done many times. Creationism is a belief in the mythology of the Bible.

Quote by: kubedawg Evolution can be proven but only since we, as humans have existed. Anything before that is a mystery.

Evolution does not prove, it explains. Scientific theories are explanations for observations. And it would be ridiculous, and perhaps wishful thinking, to claim that we can learn nothing of the past. It is true that we assume that the forces of nature that we see in operation today were the same in the past. You see, there is no evidence that the assumption is not true. Of course, there is abundant evidence that it is true. For example, we can observe seasonal layers being deposited in lakes today. When we find 45,000 such layers in a lake, we assume that the cycles of deposition have been going on for 45,000 years. There are lots of observations made in physics, astronomy, geology, astrophysics, biology, etc. that indicate that the same forces were in effect millions and millions of years ago.

Quote by: kubedawg This means that any radiometric testing on fossils that supposedly were millions of years old, maybe are only thousands of years old. We don't know the variables of the past before we existed. Therefore, we can only make assumptions based on the facts and proofs of today.

Actually, we can pretty much tell that the variables are the same. There are several methods to measure the speed of light going back far into the past. If the radio decay upon which radiometric dating depends had been different in the past, then we would be able to detect it. You see, the light from stars that is reaching us today was emitted long ago. For example, SN 1987A was observed in 1987. The speed of light at SN 1987 at the time it exploded has been measured by several methods. But SN 1987 A is 170,000 light years away. That means that it exploded 170,000 years ago.

Quote by: kubedawg Belief is where evolution and creationism should lie.

Nope. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that evolution is not correct.

Quote by: kubedawg We cannot ever find how we came about until death, or a time machine. Science is useless for trying to reveal something that could have happened before our time.

Well, that certainly explains why creationists seem to know so little about science.

[gallo]

Quote by: Captain Chaos So....

So that is not a discussion about the definition of a word.

Quote by: Captain Chaos You also missed the part where I asserted it was crappy evidence, right?

No. But that still isn't discussing the definition of the word.

Quote by: Captain Chaos I believe that, as evidence for God goes, the Bible can be dismissed as not believable. That does not mean it does not exist, and that people do not regard it as evidence, just that it is, in Isherwood's words "the worst sort of evidence."

But if you dismiss it as unbelievable then you are saying that it isn't evidence.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Rudeness is a substitute for inadequate debate, on both of our parts.

I wasn't being rude. I was pointing out the obvious.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Oh really:

Yes. Really.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Gee, that sounds like I was discussing an event (eyewitness accounts) that falls within the set of events defined as "evidence"

But you were calling it evidence. You were not giving a definition of evidence.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Hey, wow - that sounds like I was discussing historical accounts as a type of evidence - one subset of the larger set defined as "evidence"

Again, the obvious needs to be pointed out. You were not giveing a definition of evidence but making assertions about specific Bible passages.

Do you know what the word "definition" means?

Quote by: Captain Chaos Oh my goodness - now that sounds like I was discussing the difference between very weak evidence and non-existant evidence - an example of trying to expound upon the concept of "evidence"

Still not defining evidence. You were asserting an opinion about whether the Bible is evidence.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Holy cow, yet another example - in this one, I was using an example to show that 'evidence' is something people use upon which to form a belief.

Holy cow. Yet another example of a failure to define evidence. And you go on.

Quote by: Captain Chaos it looks like I have been trying to explain since we got derailed that what is meant by "evidence" includes things that would not, to you and I, constitute believable evidence. Perhaps your thinking is a bit muddled on this issue.

Oooh. Did I hurt your little feelings? Nice try, but muddled even worse. If it is not believable, then it is not evidence.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Pay attention now, see if you can grasp a little basic English.

Poor baby. It seems that when you start with the rudeness and condescention and you get it back, you can't take it. Instead you answer with, "oh yeah? so are you."

But finally you actually try to discuss the definition of the word. In spite of what you claimed, that is not what you were doing before. The difference may be subtle, but making assertions about whether or not something is or is not evidence is not the same as defining evidence. Further, stating that some people believe something is evidence is not defining evidence. The Iliad and the Aeneid are evidence in the same way that you claim the Bible is - people based belief on them.

Quote by: Captain Chaos I have shown quite precisely here how the Bible meets at least one definition of the word "evidence".

Which is not defining the word evidence.

Quote by: Captain Chaos We are getting quite rude to each other. I am basically attempting to match you tit for tat, in hopes that you will see how annoying that is. Are you willing to return to civil debate? I will if you will.

Return? You never started. Are you willing to stop making claims that you are doing something when you are not? Until the last post you were not discussing the definition of evidence - you were asserting things that you think are evidence (and then denying that the evidence is meaningful in the next breath).

Anyway, you reap what you sow.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Gallo Oooh. Did I hurt your little feelings? Nice try, but muddled even worse. If it is not believable, then it is not evidence.

Sigh...

So, you're just a jerk then? Disappointing.

Poor baby. It seems that when you start with the rudeness and condescention and you get it back, you can't take it. Instead you answer with, "oh yeah? so are you."

Actually, I dislike rudeness and condescention. I did it in return to you, to show you how annoying it is. Looks like that is the sort of debate you enjoy. That is unfortunate.

The difference may be subtle, but making assertions about whether or not something is or is not evidence is not the same as defining evidence.

Right. It is using examples to show what is meant by "evidence." I used examples rather than a literal definition. When my point was not getting through, then I resorted to quoting the dictionary.

The Iliad and the Aeneid are evidence in the same way that you claim the Bible is - people based belief on them.

Did they? I dunno, but they do not do so now. Thus, now, no one considers them evidence of gods.

Are you willing to stop making claims that you are doing something when you are not?

I pointed out to you, very clearly, how I was trying expound upon the concept of evidence. I was using the Bible as an example.

Would it satisfy you for me to say that I was attempting to discuss the meaning of the word "evidence" and what things should be considered evidence? I guess that is different from the definition, but not enough to be such a jerk about it.


So, are you willing to acknowledge that the Bible falls within the definition of the word "evidence" because some people find it useful in reaching the conclusion that god exists? Perhaps you could say that it is evidence for them, but not for you. I think that would muddy the waters, personally.

Anyway, you reap what you sow.

As do you.



And, Gallo...

You started in with the condescending/baiting talk in post #1242.

[Matt W]

*sighs* Both of you, drop it. Play nice. :rolleyes:

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: underbear1 Creationists can believe anything they choose, they can believe God hid dinsaurers bones just to screw with their heads, I don't give a damn what they BELIEVE, just don't attempt to pawn that off as Science.

Try and care about their beliefs too. Thats part of the responsibility of civic life. Is a virus ok, so long as your personal hard drive is safe? Think of the damage to society, and also the momentum of civilisation, (& remember how 'civilised' the prophets were in their political affairs).

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: luke virtual kh Try and care about their beliefs too. Thats part of the responsibility of civic life. Is a virus ok, so long as your personal hard drive is safe? Think of the damage to society, and also the momentum of civilisation, (& remember how 'civilised' the prophets were in their political affairs).

A computer virus is not OK, because it is destructive. Even if my hard drive is safe, a computer virus is not OK.

Evangelical young Earth creationism is not OK. I like your analogy. It is like a contagious disease, mainly forced upon kids by parents, but with a little help from their local preacher.

If people want to believe foolishness, that is up to them, and is their problem, not mine. When people start lobbying to teach foolishness in schools, or going around saying that people are going to go to hell for believing the wrong thing, or whatever other bit of craziness they come up with, then that is no longer just their problem. Now, they have made it my problem, and I am not OK with that.

How do we fight against it? By exposing their foolishness for what it is.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: hello_caleb "THEORY of Evolution"

Creation doesn't even warrent "theory" staus, as a theory has some basis in provable fact.

Creation is a belief, nothing more.

Just because we don't have every answer to every question, it doesn't mean those answers we CAN prove are false.


Now as soon as creationists PROVE the existance of a supreme being, we can debate futrther.

[Captain Chaos]

Whether or not there is a God, and whether or not that god created our reality - it still does not belong in a science class.

[Fonceai]

That, I think, is a correct opinion.

"God does not belong in Science class"

I agree with that completely.

I know that there are Theology classes offered in school, and those can present Creationism all the want.

The only thing the Science and Theology classes can't do is bash each other. Each class has to base its teachings on the facts of their own topics, not on the failings of the opposing side.

The wording for this in some schools quite literally says that there will be no teaching a subject based on the argument from ignorance.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Whether or not there is a God, and whether or not that god created our reality - it still does not belong in a science class.

I disagree. If studies in parapsychology showed that intecessory prayer worked then perhaps we could teach it. As the studies show intecessory prayer doesn't work....well we can teach that too. This brings God into the classroom half way, and is based on science and belongs in the class. We have a moral duty to correct peoples error.

If astronomers came across a old man with a beard living in the sky then perhaps god would have a place in science class. As it stands god doesn't show up, except in anecdotal texts and the lives/hearts of believers. But there's no hard evidence at all, nothing scientific . That too should be taught, and we should be taught to respect the scientist above the theologian when we're looking for evidence based proof.


Religion?

How do we fight against it? By exposing their foolishness for what it is.

Science class is a good place to do that. IMHO.

[Captain Chaos]

Science class is a good place to do that. IMHO.

OK - I am ok with that, as long as it is gentle and respectful.