A Quick History of Theory: Creationism and Evolution.

Why not go here

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50888

and live your fantasy to teach me something?

 

Gpelli - I taught you that Natural Selection is not the Mechanism for Evolution.

Is anyone familiar with with the very very latest changes in Evolutions 'Establishment'?
Ever since Gould passed away I have been waiting to see who the next 'High Priest' will be and what different 'Facts' He or She will instruct us to accept?

I keep hearing Richard Dawkins (but im getting overwhelmed by names so dont quote me)

Im aware that virtually all the 'NeoDarwinists' are now 'officially' sticking (or reduced to) the Hopeful Monster explanation for New information.

They dont seem to be getting too far but then again... the fossil record doesnt give them much choice.

Last I checked the ID movement was kicking the fossilised shit out of the Neo-Darwinists (who most likely will try and lose that 'legacy' name too)

 

Brocktoon, the scientific community is not involved in some conspiracy to get us to accept false information. You would love them if they told you everything you wanted to hear, but reality doesn't work that way. You don't even care about discovering our origins, learning more about our existance, you only care about your favored theory. At least science continues on for it's quest for answers rather than believing and questing after proof of some stupid religious theory (that holds no more credibility than the aztec myth that Coatlique got pregnant and gave birth to the to the moon and stars, or that we came from a divine egg, or the plethera of other mystical theories out there).

When you look for answers you have to do it objectivly. If you disregard everything you don't like to hear then you are doing yourself a disservice.

Why is it that religious zealots seem to want to halt progression? I guess in a natural social structure, you have to have something to counter-balance the flow, even things out. But that is a sociological topic, not scientific...but you see some interesting indications of it here.

 

Im for Scientific Progression.
That is why I like the ID movement.
They are Scientific and Progressive.

I also like the Creationist Researchers who dare to study objectively and are willing to actually 'Question' things.

Naturalist Evolutionists would take us back to the days of Darwin if they could.
I definately do NOT support their brand of 'Science'.

Sera ... Do you really think its necessary for you to post a comment which basically says YOU have declared Evolutionism 'Progressive' *Therefore* it gets to be deemed 'Progressive'.?

 

"Why is it that religious zealots seem to want to halt progression?"

It seems to be a reflection of the general conservativness that human posses, i.e., change is bad, because it might not be good. It is simply held closer to the surface in those more attuned to subjective knowledge, than in those who lean toward objective knowledge.

 

"Naturalist Evolutionists would take us back to the days of Darwin if they could."

This is flat out the dumbest statement you've ever made in all your incarnations!

Science moves has reality dictates- wants and desires have nothing to do with it!

Only the religious mistake opinion for reality.

 

Progression is just the adjective for progress. When I say that evolutionism is progressive, i mean that it is knowledge we are constantly building upon. ie we are progressing in our knoweldge of the topic. It isn't progressive because I say it is, it is progressive because it fits the definition.

Scientists would be outta a job if they did shit like that. Plus, that is a ludacris accusation, one that doesn't make you sound any smarter or help your point by any means. Just gives more evidence to the fact that you are simply filled with bias. If you want to be taken more seriously dump the bias, and let the scientific knowledge lead your conclusions. You can't just pick and choose through science to only fit the conclusions you want. You have to weigh it all without bias.

 

Alot of Naturalist Evolutionists ARE losing their jobs to ID Evolutionists.

Progress in Science by letting the fact take you where they will.. and you see an overwhelming wave of Creationist coming down the pike folks.

If you are still a Darwinist.. consider yourself a fossil these days

 

You've already surrender once today, juice. and Multiple times in the past.

And I'm not a "Darwinist"- no matter how many times you say it.

Further, creationist have no theory- so they are not relavant, no matter the number of ignorant followers they brainwash.

 

I don't see things in black and white, Brocktoon. I never implied I was a "darwinist" nor was I arguing for "darwinists"

I was arguing for science, and against every religious fool who seems to think religious beliefs are in some form scientific.

And maybe you need to stop staring through the magnifying glass. There is no "overwhelming wave" of creationists doing anything in the name of science. If ther are some, they are in the kiddie pool.

 

Well said!

 

The only thing I have a problem with is that it is written creationism began with the creation of the torah (as the torah was the first publication naming g-d as the creator) but there is absolutely nothing on how this conclusion was reached. If the torah was to follow the scientific process and publish its writings scientifically (ie with its hypothesis, method, results, conclusion, discussion etc), then you could look at it and say "there's a flaw here, the conclusion is invalid".

But there isn't. The torah is not a piece of scientific literature, reading it to judge its conclusions valid or invalid is invalid IN ITSELF, because there's not way of looking at the method and results to judge it an accurate investigation. Thus, you personally are invalid if you look at it in terms of a scientific investigation/conclusion, the door is slammed shut with 'insufficient evidence', not 'right' or 'wrong'.

Simply saying that what's written in the torah is the history of the idea of creationism is a totally erroneous statement, and also invalid. The writings of the Torah are the conclusion reached after the evolution of this idea, noone woke up and said "g-d created the world in seven days...", it having never been thought of before, nor did the torah write those words into itself. The history of creationism is how people arrived at that initial conclusion, and how it evolved to the present day, and should be written much like the author did for the history of evolutionism. So, when looking at this piece describing these two histories; for the history of evolutionism it is a bare, yet factual piece of literature, for the history of creationism, I would take it as flippantly as you took the writings of the torah, it certainly explains no history of the concept at all.

 

Please reread.

I noted the pre-history of the jews, "as well as the acquisition and assimilation of cultural myths that accompanied them."

further, I stated, "However, for the purposes of this essay, the history of creationism begins with the written codification of the Old Testament"

Those calling themselves "Creation Scientist" or "creationist" base thier case on the Bible. It is thier only piece of "evidence".

I explianed no history of the concept, because there exist none in the creationist eye.

And you are quite right: The bible is not to be read as a scientific document. and by implication, creationism is not a scientific theory.

And that's the point!

 

Also:

"The writings of the Torah are the conclusion reached after the evolution of this idea, noone woke up and said "g-d created the world in seven days...", it having never been thought of before, nor did the torah write those words into itself."

The torah is a book of myths "borrowed" from ancient sumeria. And you can bet, the concept of magical creation pre-dates that.
But there is no linear history to it; it is a cultural myth common to nearly all ancient societies. Many people jumped to the same conclusion all over the world.
There exist no line of researchers building evidence until the creation "theory" was accepted.

It's just accepted blindly

 

Every Society in all the Earth has held the belief the world was 'Created'.
With almost no exception they all attribute it to an 'intelligent Designer' or 'Instigator'.

Evolutionists like Geckopelli also believe in a Creation of the World.
So he also has a Creation Story (in his case, Chemicals formed the Earth and Soup Morphed into People)

The fact that most ancient cultures believed the Earth had been created by a God is evidence thats what happened.
(I did NOT say Proof, so Sera do not bother implying that thanks)

Interestingly, many ancient cultures have Creation Stories which follow similar patterns - Paradise, Judgement, Deluge (Floods), Small group surviving to repopulate Earth.

This lends more credibility to the theory, at least when the traditions match.

At any rate, IF The Deluge did happen, then we would EXPECT to find accounts of this all over the world.
The Ancient Sumerians (who were a little better at record keeping than most) Have an account of Gilgamesh, who, at one point in the story meets what is most definately Noah.
Noah (called some other name in their language) tells Gilgamesh pretty much what we find in Genesis.

Years later Moses of the Jews writes down what is said to be the 'Official' Version, which Christians and Jews believe is divinely inspired.
[Gilgamesh's Tales never claim to be Divine or inerrant]

So just as Geckopelli has admitted - The Idea of a Created World is absolutely nothing new and nothing unique to Christians or Jews.
In fact, the idea of a Global Catastrophe followed by a new Human Civilisation is pretty much the standard of all time.

Usually when you hear the term 'Creationist' its refering to those who hold the Genesis account as the accurate one.

The Intelligent Design Movement is really something different.
ID people are usually found in the 'Hard Sciences' - meaning the ones who do the actual lab work, experiments and 'hands-on' work.
They do not necessarily have any interest in Christianity, Genesis or even Religion at all.
They simply record, report and interpret the fact of life, which indicate Intelligent Design was the common cause of our natural world.
They are not interested in discussing why and who that ID is.
They leave that for people like Geckopelli to wonder about.

In this case, you do not need to be interested in Genesis either.
You can go and observe, test and record that most area's of the planet exhibit signs of mass flooding.
Then you conclude that, at some point water has covered most part of the Earth.

By happy coincidence it turns out that Genesis reports that same thing and one happens to validate the other.

Evolutionism is a little different: Its not based on any recorded history, any eye-witness accounts and unlike Genesis (which is not editable) Evolutionists Story is Unverifiable because it can change or Cancel things whenever it wants to.
If any part of Evolutionism is proved False - it simply abandons it and replaces it with a new chapter (yet to be proven).

People who believe in Evolution usually do so because they read it in a book where the author told them it was true.
Or they saw a programme in which it was presented as 'Fact' and therefore they believe it must be true.

 

"The fact that most ancient cultures believed the Earth had been created by a God is evidence thats what happened."

That's not objective evidence- at most, it's an indcation. But the fact is, There's a reasonable alternative explantion that has to do with psychology and instictive behavior.
There's also the matter of ancient use of hallucenogenic plants and fungi known to cause specific reactions, including those of a religious nature.
Without making any grand and complexed assumptions, we can, perhaps, assign this common basic belief with being the result of the workings of the minds of primitve human on earth.

Now, before you go off half-cocked, I don't nesacarily support eithier of those hypothesis. But it is enough to leave the question wide open. Besides, occam's razor is not to be disregarded.

"So just as Geckopelli has admitted - The Idea of a Created World is absolutely nothing new and nothing unique to Christians or Jews."

Admitted? I pointed it out in the essay. Are you critizing something you didn't read?

"The Intelligent Design Movement is really something different.
ID people are usually found in the 'Hard Sciences' - meaning the ones who do the actual lab work, experiments and 'hands-on' work.
They do not necessarily have any interest in Christianity, Genesis or even Religion at all.
They simply record, report and interpret the fact of life, which indicate Intelligent Design was the common cause of our natural world.
They are not interested in discussing why and who that ID is.
They leave that for people like Geckopelli to wonder about."

First-you're a fool. I don't wonder about "who" and "why". I don't believe in a "god". That's your department. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Although you've been quite succesusful at discrediting yourself, you cannot discredit me with your attempts at sutrefuge.

As to the rest of that statement, who is this "they" you speak for? All unsubstantiated BS. Do you talk to yourself in the dark?

"By happy coincidence it turns out that Genesis reports that same thing and one happens to validate the other."

So, your argument is that because the bible speaks of a flood, and most the world has been flooded at some point, that is evidence of a super intelligence with the power to create a Universe? Save it for church. That's both unresonable and illogical. Hell, it's outright dishonest.

"If any part of Evolutionism is proved False - it simply abandons it and replaces it with a new chapter (yet to be proven)."

That's the first time you got it right! See-you CAN learn!
When scientific theory is proving false, it IS abandoned and replaced with a new theory- which is then subjected to attempts to prove it false. If it is, it starts over. If it appears to be valid enough, it is used to design research to bring about new and better theories.

Or we could do it your way- assume something and than try to rationalize some evidence, in spite of reality.

"People who believe in Evolution usually do so because they read it in a book where the author told them it was true.
Or they saw a programme in which it was presented as 'Fact' and therefore they believe it must be true."

Again, replace "evolution" with "creationism" and you may be correct. Of course, I really doubt you can speak for anyone who accepts the fact of Evolution.

And you've managed to bury yourself yet deeper. Pathetic.

 

I agree there could be other explanations and its certainly not 'proof' of anything.
However,
If there are a thousand people claiming their ancestors claimed to be from across the Atlantic - it indicates that a reason to believe the story is based on an actual event.

I suppose its possible that cultures across the world were using similar drugs but Im not sure that would necessitate the same hallucinations.

Credit where it really is due - you definately are far more familiar with the affects of hallucinagens and the consequent delusions of grandeur than I could ever hope be.

I would go with Occams Razor.
If I showed up on an uninhabited desert island and found some watches - I would probably conclude that someone was behind the watches.
Assuming they accidently self-appeared would be my second choice.
Occams Razor.

I thought it was a Rant.. but Essay? Ok.

Im just happy to know we agree on something.
Wierdly, in what appeared to be the same essay I think you stated Creationism is based solely on Genesis?

Well as long as you picked one view and are sticking with it - its all good.

Im pretty sure you are the one writing and researching for the role of a Moderate Christian.
You have been in here WONDERING ABOUT how YOUR Character will carry out his Theism.
You specifically ASKED PEOPLE to answer your QUESTIONS about the nature of God.

YOU DID THIS TODAY!

I dont talk to myself in the dark (usually) however many Scientists speak to each other about Intelligent Design.
Clicking on any of these links and you can eventually get the names of thousands of Researchers (All with big fancy degree's if thats what you need)

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

http://www.iscid.org/

And be sure to check out Michael Behe's page on the net:

http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm

"By happy coincidence it turns out that Genesis reports that same thing and one happens to validate the other."

Your example is illogical because you made it that way.
You also drew out conclusions for yourself.

The Author of Genesis claims the Earth was Flooded.
Researchers (having nothing to do with Genesis) find the Earth was flooded.

So this lends credibility to to claims made in Genesis.

Thats really all that is being said.

Yes indeedy.
Evolutionism is doing a fabulous job of constantly replacing its previous versions with new ones.

Yesterdays 'Fact' is today's embarrassment.
No matter... just replace it with a yet-to-be-tested theory and insist THIS ONE is really really really 'IT'.
No really!

If you mean find evidence that supports a Hypothesis (if i can call Genesis a Hypothesis?)
Yes.

You believe Evolution is 'Scientific' because you read a book which told you it was 'Scientific' therefore its 'Scientific'.

Its slightly more complicated really... Someone like Darwin simply tells you that Fossils are 'Evidence' and you then believe its evidence.

You dont really know 'why' its supposed to be evidence for Evolutionism - you just accept that it is.

For the record - I was taught Evolutionism was a 'Fact' all throughout my education.
It wasnt until I started questioning the books i was reading (including the Bible) that I became enlightened to the real facts.

You were doing really good up till this point.
Im not sure why you keep 'Announcing' Victory and/or my 'Trouncing' but I suggest Hallucinagens are an equally reasonable explanation.

 

Brocktroon

EXACTLY LIKE RELIGION

Occam

PS

Yet science says many things are FACT... And it can SHOW YOU THOSE THINGS.
Religion cannot... [show you what it calls fact..thus its central doctrine of FAITH...to believe ,, without verification]

Think on it.

 

Christianity asks its followers to critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true.
It also counts those who question its claims as 'Noble' and worthy of commendation.

Further more - It challenges followers to live out the claims it makes.
Example: Jesus suggests that Worry can not produce tangible results like Creating new hair follicles.
Followers can then repeatedly test these claims.

This way there can be an objective and testable reason to have hope in things not yet seen.

Evolution doesnt even have that going for it.. Darwin simply tells you that animals USED TO Morph into other animals.
There is no way to ever know.
You cant even test this for your own sake.

You dont even have objective and testable claims to give you reason to hope for things you have never seen yet.

Yes, Science shows me there are organs of irreducable complexity.
These are facts we can see and touch.

Science does NOT show me animals being born with new genetic information.
Stephen J Gould is perfectly entitled to go on PBS and simply say that must have happened millions of times in the past - but he is simply stating his Imagination.
Theory at best - but absolutely NOT a Fact.

This is not necessarily or always true Occam.
Matthew tells us there was a garden called Gethsemane.
We can then verify there was a garden.

Jesus can teach that replacing anxiety with thankfulness will lead to a state of peace.
Certainly anyone can test and retest this and verify whether it works or not.

 

Brocktroon

No christian occam knows uses rational method [about religion] except a few on this forum
Occam lives what christians call the life of a good man..
Yet he will go to hell because he does not accept the copyright of GOOD that the christians faith claims.

Thus religion contradicts

There is indeed a method that allows us to 'see an objective and testable
reason to have hope in things unseen.'

Scientific/rational method...
Neptune the planet exists..because rational method SEES it.
RELIGION does not. [it needs science/reason to see it]
According to religion ,,there is no planet neptune..
And if religion was our guide. There bever would be...

Yet neptune EXISTS

Think on this.

Occam