Evolution vs. Creationism: A Never-Ending Debate

[maximus]

Originally posted by Shark
Cube - It's become obvious in this thread that you did NOT do any research whatsoever, and that you are in no way educated in evolution.

Evolution is a fact to the Nth degree.

You pulled the old "it's just a theory" bull****.

Do you even know what the definition of a theory is? Many theories are facts.

You are NOT educated in evolution whatsoever and those two years were spent as a completely bias look with the end result being completely uneducated.

you are following in the footsteps of the late physicsrocks88. i would not reccomend this. rudeness is not acceptable here.

and furthermore, he is right, you can never prove a theory correct. it is the old idea that even if you commit an experamentation a hundred times and get the same result everytime, there is no way that you can know without a shadown of a doubt that it will happen again. so unless you repeat the experiement an infinite amount of times, you can never prove it. this isn't too much a limition though, and is usually overlooked or simply ignored.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Shark
Of course general relativity has been proven correct. Where the hell have you been?

Well, if you follow the Popper method of Science, then no, Relativity has not been proven. No scientific theory can ever be proven. They can only be proven wrong. That is what makes science science. Bold Hypothesis's, and falsifiable claims.

Don't be so quick to jump down people's throats... It is true that Cube has used a couple of the most basic errors already, but well, so what if his two years of research have been futile. Perhaps now is the time for it to be fruitful.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Another God
It is true that Cube has used a couple of the most basic errors already, but well, so what if his two years of research have been futile. Perhaps now is the time for it to be fruitful.

now you're being rude, AG!

CUBE: don't let the others get to you. this thread is just as relevant as many other threads I've seen. you are voicing your views and the views of many other throughout the world, and i feel it should be adressed here.

 

[Another God]

Evolution requires the addition of genes, correct?

No.
And I only say that because I know what you are trying to imply. You are implying that there are pre-ordained genes that need to be there for stuff to happen. The fact of the matter is that Genes do not exist. Genes are something which we classify simply to allow us 'parcel' them up into a discrete entity, thereby allowing us ease in our studying of them.

The reality of it though, is that you have DNA. A long long polymerised chain of Phosphates and ribose sugars with Base side chains. Thats all it is. A long chain of A's, C's, T's and G's... From there, if u happen to have a particular sequence of ATCG's which causes a particular protein to bind to it, (RNA Polymerase) and then a section of that DNA molecule is transcribed into RNA, and that RNA causes a ribosome to bind to it and have its codons expressed into Amino Acids added to a chain of amino acids...then you get expression of that section of DNA. If you want to call that section of DNA a Gene..then go ahead...but even if all this stuff happens, the protein which comes out the other end, is quite possibly entirely useless, and so will most likely end up being broken back down into amino acids by proteases.

What do you think a Gene is exactly?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by maximus
now you're being rude, AG!

How was that being rude? I thought it was an entirely objective statement. If Cube has spent two years 'researching both sides of this debate' and he had been to TalkOrigins many times, then by now he should know not to say "Evolution is only a theory" and "Any 7th grade science class could tell you DNA is NOT alive!" and things like that.

I was not using ad hominen, I was merely observing that the comments used by him seem below standard for someone boasting years of research.

I could of course always be wrong.

 

[Shark]

Maximus - No you are wrong. A theory can be proven true, and certainly many have been. If you do not know this you have no place in the scientific community. Furthermore, I am not being rude by merely stating someones low level of mental ability. Is it rude to call someone retarded, retarded? No.

AG - Exactly, evolution is a fact and a theory. Some theories are facts, all facts are theories. Anyone who is deservant to be in the scientific community knows this. And if not, your education is purposeless.

Maximus (again) - To bad I need to notify you twice. AG is not being rude, he's merely, as I said, stating facts. You need to not be such an emotional nightmare and realize that one who is stupid is stupid.

 

[Dave]

Why are you so much smarter than us Shark?? Which degrees do you have?
Personally, I have none.

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Another God
How was that being rude? I thought it was an entirely objective statement. If Cube has spent two years 'researching both sides of this debate' and he had been to TalkOrigins many times, then by now he should know not to say "Evolution is only a theory" and "Any 7th grade science class could tell you DNA is NOT alive!" and things like that.

I was not using ad hominen, I was merely observing that the comments used by him seem below standard for someone boasting years of research.

I could of course always be wrong.

AG - Exactly. I am with you all the way. This maximus character obviously has some sort of issue. And so does Cube.

Cube - I understand one being "stupid" on the subject of science. Obviously if you're a creationist than you are completely and totally uneducated in science and specifically evolution. So how is it at all possible that us - who require evidence to back a claim - could ever communicate with you - someone who randomly chooses which claims they want to assert are true?

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Dave
Why are you so much smarter than us Shark?? Which degrees do you have?

1. I did not say anything that involved you. Do not assert the false claim that I stated I was smarter than you, or any "us" entity.

2. If I was smarter than you, it would be because I have had a higher ability to learn (intelligence) and because I spent more time in a better education system.

3. The degrees one has are absolutely tied to their "smartness" and intelligence. That said, what degrees I have are noones business here, simply because anyone can lie about a degree.

4. In is indisputable that someone who accepts the claim of creationism and has the same knowledge available to them, is surely much less knowledgeable (and probably less intelligent) than someone who accepts the claim of the (proven theory of) evolution.

 

[Another God]

Shark does sound an aweful lot like PhysicsRocks88...

Whatever.

Um, Nothing can be proven. A fact, is: Quoting Stephen J Gould:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

In other words, it is not Proven, it is not absolutely certain...it is provisionally accepted as true, because it is unreasonable not to.



"We know nothing other than the things that we know we don't know. And we could even be wrong about them."
-me

 

[Dave]

Shark, I agree with 1, 2 and 3, but 4?

How can you say Creationlism doesn't exist with certainly?
You could have been lied to by all those books you read.

 

[Shark]

There are thousands of members here - surely some will sound like others.

With that said - claims can absolutely be proven. You are mistaken.

Below you define a fact.

A fact is something that has been proven.

Thus if X is a fact (by said definition) than X is proven.

It is that simple.

Evolution meets the requirements of the definition of fact - and thus it is proven.

Originally posted by Another God
Shark does sound an aweful lot like PhysicsRocks88...

Whatever.

Um, Nothing can be proven. A fact, is: Quoting Stephen J Gould:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

In other words, it is not Proven, it is not absolutely certain...it is provisionally accepted as true, because it is unreasonable not to.



"We know nothing other than the things that we know we don't know. And we could even be wrong about them."
-me

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Shark
AG - Exactly. I am with you all the way. This maximus character obviously has some sort of issue. And so does Cube.

dismissing someone else's ideas as "obviously wrong" is a very convenient way to get through life. here, we listen to each other and try to help everybody. you are being needlessly rude and egotistical. i find it a strange coincidence that you are showing up in this thread after the departure of another jerk, physicsrocks88. maybe you two are one and the same.

personally, I'm ****ing tired of dealing with assholes, pardon my french.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Shark
4. In is indisputable that someone who accepts the claim of creationism and has the same knowledge available to them, is surely much less knowledgeable (and probably less intelligent) than someone who accepts the claim of the (proven theory of) evolution.

I don't believe this at all.
I believe that they have just been brainwashed with an entirely different metaphysical world view to the metaphysical worldview that we have all been brainwashed with.

Of course there is a chance that our stance is entirely rational and theirs isn't...but nothing is certain.

"facts" are only our subjective interpretations of the world... And our subjectivity is known to be very very wrong. We have to accept this.

"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable."

Hmmm...two TOOL quotings in one day. This is good...

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Dave
Shark, I agree with 1, 2 and 3, but 4?

How can you say Creationlism doesn't exist with certainly?
You could have been lied to by all those books you read.

How?

Because evolution has been proven - and anyone of many evolutionary proofs cannot exist if creationism were true.

Thus creationism is false.

Books I've read?

I have performed research which inadvertently proved evolution myself. Science does not lie.

 

[Shark]

Maximus - You've been put on ignore. It's obvious you contribute nothing here. You can't seem to stand anyone being forward. So you've been dealt with.

AG - Using quotes is not an intelligent way to communicate. One could quote any number of idiots. Secondly, using quotes from a drugged up band is not a good means to conduct science.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

You guys didn't seriously think I was gone did you?

Oh no, I've been here a while and will continue to be. I do have to go eat you know - I am human!

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Shark
Below you define a fact.

A fact is something that has been proven.

Thus if X is a fact (by said definition) than X is proven.

Well, if you choose that to be the definition of a fact, then we know no facts. Simple.

Equating two words, and then claiming to be in possesion of one, and therefore of the other, doesn't mean you actually have possesion of either.

Definiton: $10 is something which is the same as $10000000
This if I have $10, then I have $10000000
Well, i have $10 in my wallet.. I am a $10000000aire

So what?

personally, I'm ****ing tired of dealing with assholes, pardon my french.

Yeah, i was having fun for a while, but I have a bloody final exam tomorrow on Molecularl Biology of Nucleic Acids that I really should be studying for... I'm out for the day I think.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Shark

I have performed research which inadvertently proved evolution myself.

Please share the details of this research.

Originally posted by Shark
Science does not lie.

I guess not, but your brain might- seen the matrix? Is it not possible your brain is getting information from a source other than your body and if that is a possiblity then maybe everything you know is false.

That's one reason why evolution isn't definately true. I mean it probably is correct. But who knows...

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
You guys didn't seriously think I was gone did you?

Oh no, I've been here a while and will continue to be. I do have to go eat you know - I am human!

LOL, and suddenly "shark" is no longer "Online"

 

[maximus]

that's odd, physicsrocks88 arrived here seconds after shark left.

too bad, you two would get along wonderfully.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Shark
One could quote any number of idiots.

I've proved your theory

 

[maximus]

i repeat my proposal that we simply ignore physicsrocks88 and his alter ego 'shark'. i think we can all see that what little he does add to the discussion is greatly overdone with his rudeness and ego.

(wait, i am perdicting he will relpy to this with something very rude!)

 

[Shark]

So now we've got AG citing drug bands and Dave citing drug movies.

I am here and not signed off. My name doesn't even appear as it's hidden.

If you think I am such a spammer maxium, why in the hell would I need to change my name?

Anyhow - Evolution is proven. There's no refutting that. When a scientific claim is proven using mathamatics, such as evolution, it becomes proven to an even higher degree. And evolution is self-sufficient, nothing can unprove it.

 

[Mulder]

I'm still waiting for (CubeX in particular) to explain why he refuses to believe all the evidence that prooves how old the Earth really is.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Mulder
I'm still waiting for (CubeX in particular) to explain why he refuses to believe all the evidence that prooves how old the Earth really is.

wow, what a touchy thread!
I guess I'll wait for those explanations too before sayng something that adds to this controversy.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you think I am such a spammer maxium, why in the **** would I need to change my name?

Phrased awfully curiously for someone claiming not to be PR88...

I think you're both LogicalAtheist anyways; you have the same bad attitude and the same views about the factual content of science as he did.


In any case, the topic of provability belongs in the philosophy forum, not the religion forum (and certainly not in this thread). You really should go over there if you want to evangelize (unless you wish to cast your faith in science as a religion... in which case it belongs in this forum but still not in this thread).


The main point of this thread was supposed to be a chance for Cube to defend his brand of creationism. That means that use of the Bible is fair game along with observational evidence, with the goal of refining a theory that is both consistent with observation and the Bible.

If you're unable to argue in other belief systems, then pretend you're doing a proof by contradiction and have presumed the idea of creationism is correct and you are working to logically derive a contradiction... with the end goal of proving all useful forms of creationism are contradictory.

If you're unable to do that, then you don't belong in this aspect of the discussion.


The secondary point seemed to be discussing the flaws of evolution, but that also really belongs in a different thread. (in the Other Sciences forum)

 

[maximus]

good news everybody! we can stop worrying about physicsrocks88. greg kicked him out!

 

[Hurkyl]

Should we restart the thread so there isn't 5 pages of junk at the beginning?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Should we restart the thread so there isn't 5 pages of junk at the beginning?

Why? No offense, but the brand of creationism this thread started with is very obviously wrong to anyone who believes the scientific advancements in anyone of a dozen fields.