Does it matter?

[caley]

Does it matter if we are here as the result of spontaneous creation or evolution?  Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive.  Neither will ever be proven or disproven.  Both are tautologies.  And Christians here who believe in Creation--will proof of evolution shake your faith?  Likewise for atheists--will proof of creation make you believe, or simply make you Deists?

My point is that the whole debate is pointless because it doesn't matter how we got here, all that matters is that we are here and the only question is: what do I do now?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

In the small scheme of things, no it doesn't matter. And if everybody went their own way, then that's fine.

Problem is, not everyone is content to do that. There are currently various organizations trying to remove evolution from school curriculums and/or have creation "science" inserted into those curriculums (and for the record I am not opposed to teaching of various creationist theories/views in school, just not in science class).

For example, the Ontario school board removed almost all mention of evolution from the school curriculum (except for a small segment of an optional Grade 12 biology course). Why'd they do it? PC reasons. Education be d*nmed.

 

[ZiSunka]

Spontaneous creation? What an oxymoron! Either something happens spontaneously or it is created. It's like saying "spontaneous arson" or "spontaneous architecture."

 

[Drought]

Originally posted by caley
My point is that the whole debate is pointless because it doesn't matter how we got here, all that matters is that we are here and the only question is: what do I do now?

I agree completely. "How" will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction primarily because even if the answer is 100% proven one way or the other, only a small number of people will actually switch sides.

 

[WinAce]

Originally posted by caley

Likewise for atheists--will proof of creation make you believe, or simply make you Deists?

"Make you believe"? A Deist believes... As to whether most atheists would convert to any specific religion or follow the entity(ies) who created, that would probably depend on a very complex series of decisions taking into account their nature and things.

If it was proven that the universe was created by an entity that was totally insane and loved torturing people, for example, you would obviously be forced to believe... but follow it?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by caley
Does it matter if we are here as the result of spontaneous creation or evolution?

Does it matter if Einstein is right and Newton is wrong? Does it matter if energy exists only in discrete quanta? Does it matter if the Earth goes around the Sun and not vice versa?

HECK YES IT MATTERS! If we ever hope to understand the natural world in order to control it to meet human needs, it matters very much that our ideas about the world match the way the world really is.

Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive.

That depends on which flavor of creation theory you're talking about. The YEC variety certainly is not compatible with evolution.

Neither will ever be proven or disproven.

Proven in what sense? NO scientific principle can ever be proven correct beyond any and all doubt. Does that mean we all pretend we know nothing? I don't think so.

Both are tautologies.

Quiz: Define "tautology". Explain why creation theory and evolutionary theory are both tautologies.

And Christians here who believe in Creation--will proof of evolution shake your faith?  Likewise for atheists--will proof of creation make you believe, or simply make you Deists?

Who cares about silly hypothetical questions. The reality is that YEC has been proven to be a bunch of nonsense and evolution has proven to be one of the most powerful scientific theories of all time. Deal with it.

My point is that the whole debate is pointless because it doesn't matter how we got here, all that matters is that we are here and the only question is: what do I do now?

Figure out how we got here?

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by caley
My point is that the whole debate is pointless

The debate is only pointless to creationists. For these who promote evolution, they can only exist as an arguement against creationism. Darwin took the theory of natural selection and mixed a lot of nonsense into it and tried to use it as a weapon or a arguement against creationism.

Evolution is a debate against Creationism. If there was no debate, then you would no longer have the "theory" of evolution. Darwin took the theory of natural selection and mixed a lot of nonsense in with it, then he half heartedly tried to use it as a weapon or a debate against Creationism.

What is amazing is that anyone took it serious. What they should have done was to purge natural selection of evolutionary "theory". But it was the only weapon they had against Creationism and thus against the Creator, so they had no choice but to go with what Darwin gave them to work with.

 

 

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by JohnR7
The debate is only pointless to creationists. For these who promote evolution, they can only exist as an arguement against creationism. Darwin took the theory of natural selection and mixed a lot of nonsense into it and tried to use it as a weapon or a arguement against creationism.

Evolution is a debate against Creationism. If there was no debate, then you would no longer have the "theory" of evolution. Darwin took the theory of natural selection and mixed a lot of nonsense in with it, then he half heartedly tried to use it as a weapon or a debate against Creationism.

What is amazing is that anyone took it serious. What they should have done was to purge natural selection of evolutionary "theory". But it was the only weapon they had against Creationism and thus against the Creator, so they had no choice but to go with what Darwin gave them to work with.

 

 

What a load of nonsense. Natural selection is evolutionary theory, basically - that and a faulty copying mechanism.

If you have faulty copying mechanism - DNA - plus natural selection, you have evolution.

All you need to add is time.

So which do you dispute - the faulty copying mechanism, natural selection or time?

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Darwin took the theory of natural selection and mixed a lot of nonsense into it and tried to use it as a weapon or a arguement against creationism.

Please specify exactly what "nonsense" Darwin "mixed" with the theory of natural selection.

Thanks.

Evolution is a debate against Creationism. If there was no debate, then you would no longer have the "theory" of evolution. Darwin took the theory of natural selection and mixed a lot of nonsense in with it, then he half heartedly tried to use it as a weapon or a debate against Creationism.

Is that all is is to you? A debate against Creationism? Aren't you forgetting about people like me, who believe that God created everything, through a slow process of evolving and diversifying life forms? Aren't you forgetting about the multitudes of Christian and other theists, practicing in the many different scientific fields, that acknowledge and accept the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of evolution?

What is amazing is that anyone took it serious. What they should have done was to purge natural selection of evolutionary "theory". But it was the only weapon they had against Creationism and thus against the Creator, so they had no choice but to go with what Darwin gave them to work with.

What truly is amazing, is the people who take their religious interpretation of their sacred writings, and use them as a trump card, to end all serious inquiry about our natural world. What truly is amazing, is the people who don't question science one iota, unless it happens to contradict their narrow, religious views. What truly is amazing, is people who know so little about the scientific process, they actually deride terms like "theory", by putting quotation marks around it, as if a scientific theory is equated to a layman's use of the word.

It took a long time for the religious world to accept the fact that the earth was not the center of the solar system and universe. It also took a long time for the religious world to accept the fact that the earth is not flat.

The theory of evolution will eventually be accepted by the religious world.


John

 

[lithium.]

The theory of evolution will eventually be accepted by the religious world.

Heh I have to agree completely.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by David Gould
If you have faulty copying mechanism - DNA - plus natural selection, you have evolution. 

DNA plus natural selection is science. Evolution "theory" is pure adultrated junk.

Darwin could have been a great scientist if he would have just stayed with his work on natural selection. 

Life makes adjustments to adapt to a ever changing invironment. We all adjust and adapt.  

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by TheBear
What truly is amazing, is people who know so little about the scientific process, they actually deride terms like "theory", by putting quotation marks around it, as if a scientific theory is equated to a layman's use of the word. 

Hay Joe, get off of your high horse. No were do the rules of this forum say that you have to have a Phd to come in here and have a discussion. But if my knowledge is to little for you or my IQ is not high enough for you. Then I will simply bow down and allow you to find a more worthy person to carry on a conversation with. Hope you enjoy yourself. Thanks, JohnR7

 

[TheBear]

No need for personal attacks, JohnR7. That is covered in the forum rules.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by JohnR7
The debate is only pointless to creationists. For these who promote evolution, they can only exist as an arguement against creationism. Darwin took the theory of natural selection and mixed a lot of nonsense into it and tried to use it as a weapon or a arguement against creationism.

Evolution is a debate against Creationism. If there was no debate, then you would no longer have the "theory" of evolution. Darwin took the theory of natural selection and mixed a lot of nonsense in with it, then he half heartedly tried to use it as a weapon or a debate against Creationism.

What is amazing is that anyone took it serious. What they should have done was to purge natural selection of evolutionary "theory". But it was the only weapon they had against Creationism and thus against the Creator, so they had no choice but to go with what Darwin gave them to work with. 

Hmm...this seems not to be the case.  Were the debate actually pointless to creationists then they would not be spending so much emotional energy on it, spending their money to set up web sites that "debunk" it, or writing books to refute it, nor for that matter would you be spending your time posting about it.

Your understanding of Darwin seems to be quite limited from a historical perspective.  He was never anti-creationist.  He published his theory after waiting a great deal of time because he knew he would be persecuted because of it.  In victorian england respectabilty was everything, and respectability did not include revolutionairies or those that went against the creationist dogma of the Anglican church.  This debate, so "pointless" to creationists, was preached against in churches all over England, and continues to be attacked relentlessly by fundemetalists rangling from the bible belt to the middle east.

Darwin would probably have happily left publication of the theory until after his death, but Wallace derived the theory on his own and was close to publishing.  Darwin's friends convinced him to publish at the same time as Wallace, so that he would not be scooped and his considerable renown as a natural scientist would back the theory (his works on the biology and morphology of barnacles are still required reading for students in that area).  It was about the science-- not about an attack on creationism.  Darwin's name was dragged through the mud in his lifetime....something that he never wanted and would have avoided had he been able.

There seems to be very little middle ground in this debate because neither side is really debating the same subject.  Scientists are holding to a theory that is well supported while creationists are fighting what they percieve to be blasphemy.  Very few people understand the POV of the other side, which is why such vitrol is spewed forth.  It's a fight between foolish dogmatists and evil heritics, and most people are unwilling to give an inch.

In my opinion, anyone using evolution to "disprove" a religion is a fool, while anyone denying the facts of evolution based on their interpretation of their religion is likewise a fool.  Science is science and the data is the data.  All emotion and personal likes or dislikes aside, the supernatural is not looked at, and from a scientific perspective should not be commented on.

 

[TheBear]

JohnR7,

Why do you put quotation marks around the word, "theory"?

Also, you made the claim that Darwin "took the theory of natural selection and mixed a lot of nonsense in with it, then he half heartedly tried to use it as a weapon or a debate against Creationism."

Please give specifics, thanks.

Also, this is a discussion board, not a lectern. So, just to let you know, when you make statements, please be prepared to recieve counter-points, and be able to back up what you claim.

Thanks,
John

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by JohnR7
DNA plus natural selection is science. Evolution "theory" is pure adultrated junk.

Darwin could have been a great scientist if he would have just stayed with his work on natural selection. 

Life makes adjustments to adapt to a ever changing invironment. We all adjust and adapt.  

Evolution theory is natural selection plus DNA. You just said two contradictory things. You said that it was science and you said that it was junk.

If we think we all adjust and adapt, you have accpeted evolution.

I think you are mightily confused here.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by MSBS
Hmm...this seems not to be the case.  Were the debate actually pointless to creationists then they would not be spending so much emotional energy on it, spending their money to set up web sites that "debunk" it, or writing books to refute it, nor for that matter would you be spending your time posting about it.

Your understanding of Darwin seems to be quite limited from a historical perspective.  He was never anti-creationist.  He published his theory after waiting a great deal of time because he knew he would be persecuted because of it.  In victorian england respectabilty was everything, and respectability did not include revolutionairies or those that went against the creationist dogma of the Anglican church.  This debate, so "pointless" to creationists, was preached against in churches all over England, and continues to be attacked relentlessly by fundemetalists rangling from the bible belt to the middle east.

Darwin would probably have happily left publication of the theory until after his death, but Wallace derived the theory on his own and was close to publishing.  Darwin's friends convinced him to publish at the same time as Wallace, so that he would not be scooped and his considerable renown as a natural scientist would back the theory (his works on the biology and morphology of barnacles are still required reading for students in that area).  It was about the science-- not about an attack on creationism.  Darwin's name was dragged through the mud in his lifetime....something that he never wanted and would have avoided had he been able.

There seems to be very little middle ground in this debate because neither side is really debating the same subject.  Scientists are holding to a theory that is well supported while creationists are fighting what they percieve to be blasphemy.  Very few people understand the POV of the other side, which is why such vitrol is spewed forth.  It's a fight between foolish dogmatists and evil heritics, and most people are unwilling to give an inch.

In my opinion, anyone using evolution to "disprove" a religion is a fool, while anyone denying the facts of evolution based on their interpretation of their religion is likewise a fool.  Science is science and the data is the data.  All emotion and personal likes or dislikes aside, the supernatural is not looked at, and from a scientific perspective should not be commented on.

Well said!

 

[chickenman]

if only i'd known that evolution was simply an anticreationist debating tool, then I wouldn't have wasted three years studying it at university

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by TheBear
JohnR7,

Why do you put quotation marks around the word, "theory"? 

In order to have a theory you have to have a system of assumptions based on accepted principles, and rules of procedure. Darwin's so called "theories" were by his own admission based on evidence that did not exist. What they call a "missing link". He simply did not follow the rules of procedure to offer any proof. I really can not consider evolution to be a theory without any evidence. It lowers the scientific standard to lower the requirements for what you can consider to be a theory. He tries to cover for himself by questioning the "Imperfection of the geological record". Perhaps what he should have done was question the imperfection of his theory. There is still no evidence that a more complex form of life developed from a simple form of life in order to adapt to it's invironment.

Actually, it is the invironment that often does the adapting. If you put two plants next to each other, often one will dominate over the other, because it will do a better "job" of controling it's invironment. In some cases, it will actually put out chemicals to kill off the competition. One of the reasons that there is so much healing to be found in nature, is that so many plants have ways to defend themselves against things like fungus, molds, virus and bacteria.

 

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by chickenman
if only i'd known that evolution was simply an anticreationist debating tool, then I wouldn't have wasted three years studying it at university

You have lots of company. Many people get rather worthless degrees because they want to make life easy on themselves, but they are not really qualified to do anything when they do graduate.

But look on the bright side, it did not cost you much out of your wallet. About the only loss was some time that could have been spent on something productive.