RE: Evolution/Creation debate

RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 9:39:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you went and found one contrarian. Big fucking deal. Now for an injection of reality. If you could count you'd have noticed that I actually found two, both with much better credentials than you, and without even hardly looking. How's that for an injection of reality? K.

kdsub -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 10:05:06 AM)
If you really want to hear a reasonable competent scientists position on God...science... and the Universe... watch THIS!!! Butch

Marc2b -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 10:32:09 AM)
quote: As a person of faith...but my own type of faith...I was disappointed in Bill Nye...He did a terrible job of defending science as an alternative to the creation of the universe and consciousness by God. All either one could do was say they could not explain the mysteries of the universe. When each was asked for proof they both could only say...It is an unknown mystery that cannot be explained thru science or religion. I would much rather of watched Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson rather than Bill Nye... he at least would have made sense. I watched the debate live and, aside from the rambling about bow ties in the beginning, I thought Bill Nye did a fantastic job. He was honest enough to admit when science has yet to come up with an explanation for something where as Ken Ham kept using the old creationist fall back of citing the bible (when creationist call themselves humble and accuse scientists of being arrogant, they are lying; thinking you know everything is arrogant, admitting that there are still unanswered questions is humble). Bill Nye won that debate hands down. Of course the creationists will deny this but bear in mind we are talking about people who don't even know what a theory is and who dismiss every piece of evidence for evolution and against the existence of their god. I understand why many scientists and other thinkers contend that we should debate creationists but I think they are wrong. Too many people think that both sides really are equal. I think all of the respected "public" scientists of the day (Tyson, Dawkins, etc.) should challenge the top creationists (Ham, Hovind - presuming he's out of prison, etc.) to a no holds bared. I think they should show no mercy and eviscerate (metaphorically speaking of course, despite the temptation to do so literally) in front of the public. Anyone who actually believes in all of the creationist nonsense is an idiot. That don't bother me. They are free to be idiots and are free to preach their idiocy. They have no right, however, to try and force the rest of us into believing their idiocy by trying to sneak it into our science classes. Science deals with reality. Religion is fantasy. No Religious Bullshit in our science classes! No "in God we trust" on our money! No "under God" in the pledge of allegiance (I'm not even sure we have a pledge of allegiance)! Tax church owned property!

kdsub -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 10:43:58 AM)
Of course we all have our opinions but I hope you take the time to watch my link and you will see how stupid Bill Nye was in his debate. If there was anyone that could influence my beliefs this is the man... I don't agree with him in some areas but unlike the subject of this thread he is worth listening to. Butch

jlf1961 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 10:46:06 AM)
Uh, folks, I really hate to be the bearer of bad news, but some scientists believe that we could be a part of a very huge computer simulation, and there for we were created by a software publisher.

Marc2b -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:10:15 AM)
I have watched Tyson, Dawkins, et al, many times. I watched the debate. Sure, I could quibble about a few things but overall Bill Nye was far from stupid. He kicked Ken's ass (and Ken and his fellow creatards are just too stupid to realize it).

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:11:30 AM)
That again is a belief, a hypothesis more than anything. It is akin to the hypothesis of Panspermia, where earth was essentially "fertilized" by extraterrestrials. There is largely no evidence supporting these hypotheses, but it is a possibility so scientists like to keep their minds open. They don't go into their sciences trying to prove these hypotheses, they recognize what NEEDS to be true in terms of observable evidence in order for the hypothesis to be remotely considered correct, but when there is a lack of evidence it will forever remain a hypothesis and not be elevated to any other level. Science is never provable 100%, science provides us with the most likely explanations for how the world works, and as a result are always subject to changes. In the debate the debaters were asked what would change their minds, the creationist said nothing would change his mind, whereas Bill openly said that ANY contrary evidence would change his mind and the minds of scientists world wide. Science doesn't claim to know everything, but it does work to provide explanations for what we see around us, and reasonable predictions for what will happen in the future.

kdsub -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:11:59 AM)
Stupid is too strong I guess...I was just looking forward to the type of debate Tyson could bring. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:16:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Even if 2 independent life forms emerged independently that both just happened to use DNA to RNA transcription to protein there is absolutely no reason that the same codon should represent the same amino acid. Sure there is. The bond angles and bond energies would account for that. But I don't think I clearly stated my point earlier. Let me try again. Thinking out loud here so feel free to poke holes. Ignore for the moment there was probably only one great continent when life took hold on this planet. Now suppose there was a serendipitous meeting of materials, energy conditions, etc. in a mud hole that is located on what is now Africa and at the same time more or less a similar set of beneficial circumstances took place at a location that is now Chicago. It is possible that self-replicating DNA developed in both pools but with variations. Assuming, like the liquid fueled rocket has gotta be what it is to be a rocket, DNA has gotta be DNA in order to meet the first condition for survival ~ self-replication. Under those circumstances it is possible that two different ancestor cells developed but not so very different if their environments were hospitable. I am proposing a binary scenario for the sake of simplicity but I see no reason that DNA formation and first cell formation could not have occurred in hundreds or thousands of places on Pangaea. Hell, life could have broken out like the measles. It need not have been a one off event. In fact, postulating many events supports the greater chances of success. Put it the other way, the obvious success postulates there were many separate but similar origin events. Therefore, numerous first ancestor cells.

kdsub -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:18:48 AM)
If people are really interested in a mental debate on the existence of God....THIS is something they should watch. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:19:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Stupid is too strong I guess...I was just looking forward to the type of debate Tyson could bring. Butch Tyson is bright, straight forward, amusingly sly, and entertaining.

kdsub -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:21:00 AM)
More than that vince he makes sense and really tries to explain the mysteries instead of just calling them mysteries. Butch

jlf1961 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:21:06 AM)
Panspermia is not the belief that the planet was fertilized by aliens, it is the theory that primitive life was carried here on comets and impacting asteroids. Only the fruit cakes like Erich von Däniken and those idiots H2 gets to star on their series Ancient Astronauts.

Lucylastic -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:26:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub More than that vince he makes sense and really tries to explain the mysteries instead of just calling them mysteries. Butch I love me some Tyson

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 11:56:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you went and found one contrarian. Big fucking deal. Now for an injection of reality. If you could count you'd have noticed that I actually found two, both with much better credentials than you, and without even hardly looking. How's that for an injection of reality? K. So what? Do you actually understand the biochemistry enough to actually discuss the matter? Do you know what a codon is?

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 12:03:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b I understand why many scientists and other thinkers contend that we should debate creationists but I think they are wrong. Too many people think that both sides really are equal. I think all of the respected "public" scientists of the day (Tyson, Dawkins, etc.) should challenge the top creationists (Ham, Hovind - presuming he's out of prison, etc.) to a no holds bared. I think they should show no mercy and eviscerate (metaphorically speaking of course, despite the temptation to do so literally) in front of the public. The problem is the Gish Gallop. The creationist will throw out lies at a ferocious pace on a wide variety of scientific topics that no single scientist could possibly be prepared to refute. An example by the "creator" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx6UKslLPso which is why most people involved in the science education side of this think these "debates" are a waste of time.

EdBowie -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 2:00:08 PM)
That's an appeal to authority logical fallacy piled on top of your earlier strawman fallacy. Some reality. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you went and found one contrarian. Big fucking deal. Now for an injection of reality. If you could count you'd have noticed that I actually found two, both with much better credentials than you, and without even hardly looking. How's that for an injection of reality? K.

joether -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 3:31:15 PM)
Really surprises me the depth of ignorance this country has become. Theory of Evolution: (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals Theory of AbioGenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter Which of those two sound like it talks about how life ACTUALLY got started? The first one talks about what happened....AFTER....life started. The second one seeks to explain how life....STARTED....in the first place. This 'debate' like others in the past has all been about religious nutcakes pushing their agenda and religious down the throats of other people for decades. They spend countless hours trying to redefine science and its terms so that creationism is not only acceptable form of scientific thought but is the ONLY thought. Problem is, the evidence to creationism is very limited and in many cases of questionable credibility and/or reliably. Its not to say its false, but that the chance it could be true is exceedingly hard to justify or prove. You simply remove the one linchpin from creationism and the whole thing falls apart: The Holy Bible. When one tries to show evidence that creationism is correct, simply look for the evidence NOT used but removed from the 'gathering data' process. Most often its material and evidence that disproves the Holy Bible as correct. An that's what creationist 'scientist' do: remove anything that discredits the Holy Bible (since its 100% true) and what remains has to be true.....right? But I agree with Mr. Nye, that we as an informed people should not censor creationism. It has its place, but its not within science. Mr. Nye did a very good job in that debate.

dcnovice -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 4:06:48 PM)
quote: some scientists believe that we could be a part of a very huge computer simulation, and there for we were created by a software publisher. That would explain an awful lot, particularly if we're in a Microsoft product.

Paladinagain -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/6/2014 4:06:53 PM)
actually the FACTS lean toward creationism. The "facts" of evolution are totally erroneous. Those promoting evolution rely on the fact that most people do not have the technical background to realize what bullshit it is. There are twice as many scientists that would support creationism than evolution, but the established political machinery of today’s "scientific community" attempts to crush all who would oppose the lie.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875