Evolution vs. Creation.

[Tony]

SuperFreak - the reason I choose the theory of gravity (an example you mentioned) is that it tells me exactly how an apple will fall in any particular environment. I have a pretty good idea that the theory is very close to the truth because it has been correct in every single experiment. An apple will always fall.

Though what makes it science is that if it is found that for some odd reason an apple just floats, or falls to the ceiling - then the entire theory will be revised to accomondate for the new findings.

There is no such thing as absolute truth, but science offers us means to observe the world, make theories, and test them out continuesly, until the outcome is predicted every time.

I guess your alternative to gravity is intelligent falling

[Dan]

To expand on tonys coments, with the "theroy" of creationisum it can never be improved aponen or corected. Becuses of this i whould not realy call it a theroy at all and more of some one stating that "this is the truth and will allways be the truth and if you do not blive it you are wrong".

For example if we got a time mashen and whent back and saw that things did in fact slowly evloale over a long time. Creationists whould still blive in creatisume and not chage there "theroy". But if we whent back in time and did it in a vaild sciftick way and saw that the erath realy was only 6000 years old we whould chage the theroy of evletoion of fit the turth.

Sicneses is all about turths well knowing that nothing can ever be totaly proven but only disproven. On the other hand relgion is all about abluslt turths witch they make and then go and fill in the blanks.

[Tony]

And that's the problem.

Organized religion gives us an absolute truth that comes from a single source (a book written a long long time ago) (in contrast all of scientific material is peer reviewed). This absolute truth doesn't really tell us as to what is going to happen. It doesn't give us means to test or validate this truth.

If anyone is interested, I can tell you exactly how to disprove gravity - it's really simple. You just have to keep on dropping that apple until it doesn't.

Actually psychology has a lot to tell us on the subject of thinking. All of the below consepts are demonstrated in the general population and prevent critical thinking. Some are just affected more than others.

confirmation bias - a tendency to search for information that confirms one's preconceptions

fixation - the inability to see a problem from a new perspective

belief bias - the tendency for one's preexisting beliefs to distort logical reasoning, sometimes by making invalid conclusions seem valid, or valid conclusions seem invalid

belief perseverance - clinging to one's initial conceptions after the basis on which they were formed has been discredited


So before your next argument, consider if you're falling for any of the above mentioned obsticles and try and make an objective post.

[rizzix]

You guys have some idea of organised religion... so easy to ingore the fact that there are studies, articles, encyclicals written every day.. Religion is not stagnant, it keeps changing as the people learn more about their faith.

And the bible is a compilation of books. It's not just one book.

And, in these organised religions, the body (like the church) is always right in matters of "faith". In that sense it reveals the absolute truth.

Get your facts straight -- this goes to both sides of this stupid debate.

[Dan]

rizzix wrote:

And, in these organised religions, the body (like the church) is always right in matters of "faith". In that sense it reveals the absolute truth.

Get your facts straight -- this goes to both sides of this stupid debate.

This is excatly what we are saying. The church is trying to make truth to fit there faith. Just becuses the topic might step in to the realm of faith like evlevtion dose, dose not mean that the church can just say X and make it truth.

Edit: Also we are not saying that new acraticals and documetes and ideas are not being made every day. We are saying that non of thess are using a logical and unbasied method to find turth and that they are all based on the core blifes and doctrian of the church witch will never chage. It is that they will not chage the old not that they do not make new.

Also i am shure that most of us are aware that the bible is compsoted of serveral books. But this in no one chages any of the staments we have made about it.

[rizzix]

Evolution is not a matter of faith. -- You need to learn more about the religion to know what and what is not a matter of faith. pfft!

[Dan]

rizzix wrote:

Evolution is not a matter of faith. -- You need to learn more about the religion to know what and what is not a matter of faith. pfft!

LOL, of corse evolution is not. What is a madder of faith is that it did not happen. I know pletaly about many difrent relgiones, in fact i probly know more about christatiy then the average christion in northern amaricak. And more importntly to debate for evletion one dose not need to know about christainity.

It is a matter of fiath that the church and many of it's hard core fallowers do not blive in eveletion becues it interfreses with the world being created in 7 days when elvetion takes millions of years. So unless you are saying that the church has selctive faith where they cna turn it on and off at will, it is a matter of faith.

Also what the chruch goses on about being true or right expans behond faith. For example gay margiare.

[rizzix]

Hacker Dan wrote:

It is a matter of fiath that the church and many of it's hard core fallowers do not blive in eveletion becues it interfreses with the world being created in 7 days when elvetion takes millions of years. So unless you are saying that the church has selctive faith where they cna turn it on and off at will, it is a matter of faith.

Depends on what church you're talking about.. The Catholic Church has openly stated that evolution is a science and prefectly acceptable scientific theory..

I can tell you that half these creationist don't realize that their church (probably) accepts evolution..

Some of them don't belong to any church, they might claim to be, but they don't follow the church, they follow thier own beliefs, which happens to be a sub-division of christianity. That is, they believe in christ, but they believe in a whole of other stuff, that possibly not accepted by their church. Again, possibly.

Also, there's not just one church, there are many of these institutions. You probably meant one particular church while I implied another.. Such a generic, term..

So here again, don't blindly point out faults in the chuch...

Hacker Dan wrote:

Also what the chruch goses on about being true or right expans behond faith. For example gay margiare.

Yes, it does.. The church talks about morality, which is related to faith.. It is not necessarily always right when it comes to morality (neither does it claim it self to be always right.. it's just the matters of "faith" that it is always right)... but the issues here on gay marraige was the usage of the term marriage.. it's sacred to the chuch.. the chuch proposed the use of the term "union".. marriage in the catholic point of view (and for the rest of the world.. it was anyway.. until this materialistc age) is there for reproduction... and gay marraige has nothing to do with reproduction.. it has more to do with lust than anything else... but in this materialistic world, it's very hard for people to differenctiate between lust and love.. cuz people can love money, and they can love thier car.. and in the same way they can love people... love is just used to decribe an emotion.. but from a catholic point of view it's much more than that..

[rizzix]

Hacker Dan wrote:

n fact i probly know more about christatiy then the average christion in northern amaricak. And more importntly to debate for evletion one dose not need to know about christainity.

Indeed so stay on topic (if you wish to continues this foolish debate), and try and be more realistic (blind accusation are pathetic)... Also, while you do know more than the average north american, it's almost certainly not enough...

[Dan]

rizzix wrote:

Also, there's not just one church, there are many of these institutions. You probably meant one particular church while I implied another.. Such a generic, term..

Obvesly, but my post ment to refure to any church/orgasized relgion that blives such.

rizzix wrote:

Yes, it does.. The church talks about morality, which is related to faith.. It is not necessarily always right when it comes to morality (neither does it claim it self to be always right.. it's just the matters of "faith" that it is always right)...

Eh? So they are righ about faith and only some times about morality? That seems prity convliuded to me. Esptaly since there faith ushely talks about morality.

rizzix wrote:

but the issues here on gay marraige was the usage of the term marriage.. it's sacred to the chuch.. the chuch proposed the use of the term "union".. marriage in the catholic point of view (and for the rest of the world.. it was anyway.. until this materialistc age) is there for reproduction... and gay marraige has nothing to do with reproduction.. it has more to do with lust than anything else... but in this materialistic world, it's very hard for people to differenctiate between lust and love.. cuz people can love money, and they can love thier car.. and in the same way they can love people... love is just used to decribe an emotion.. but from a catholic point of view it's much more than that..

Cleary you have never realy know some one who is gay or a gay couple if you can turly blive that there is no love between them. A gay realtionship is just like any other in terms of love and lust. So unless you are going to say that all relationships are about lust and not love you are very wrong and going on to a very dangures tangent.

Quote:

Indeed so stay on topic (if you wish to continues this foolish debate), and try and be more realistic (blind accusation are pathetic)... Also, while you do know more than the average north american, it's almost certainly not enough...

I think if anything my accusations are too close to the turth and hardly blind. You go on about how the chruch dose not make turth yet in your own post you seme to claim that the chruch can define the meaning of words and weather gays aucatly love each other. The truth is that marage in the real world is or at least should be about love not reproduction. The chruch may see it this way but it dose not make it so. Marage or at least the idea of it exists in many difrent relgiones and clutoruls and is hardly just uninque to the chirstion faiths.

Edit: I realy do not see how i am going out on wilde accusations about the churchs and relgiones. I am just saying that simpley relgion is not science. It can not make sciencfit theroys besuaces of the way it operators. It is very ture that the peoleop in this debate and alot of peoleop bleong to and repseting most relgions in the area of this debate are taking somthing writen in the bible or a side by a church as a fact/truth and then trying to find proof to make it work. This is very obvesly seen and is not blindly accusing peoleop.

If the church you choises to fallow blives in elevtion thats great, and i am happy for you that you need peoleop to tell you what to blive. But that has nothing to do with the debate or the fact that some still do not blive in evlevtion. I also talk about relgion as a hole and it is clear that i do not mean relgions with out a creation sotry, things need to be taken in context.

Maybe insted of just point out how every one is wrong you could give some points of your own to lead by expamle rather then truing this in to a flame war between us?

[MysticVegeta]

Off topic on off topic: Wow it is the (not so) great debate!

[Mazer]

MysticVegeta wrote:

Off topic on off topic: Wow it is the (not so) great debate!

Holy crap. Did that even make sense to you?

[MysticVegeta]

I didnt bother reading it

[rizzix]

Hacker Dan wrote:

Eh? So they are righ about faith and only some times about morality? That seems prity convliuded to me. Esptaly since there faith ushely talks about morality.

Not sometimes, but usually! But they don't claim to be _always_.

Hacker Dan wrote:

Cleary you have never realy know some one who is gay or a gay couple if you can turly blive that there is no love between them. A gay realtionship is just like any other in terms of love and lust. So unless you are going to say that all relationships are about lust and not love you are very wrong and going on to a very dangures tangent.

Most relationships here are based on emotions, love is more than a mere emotion, it is a bond... Such bonds aka "love" is so great that one may even give up his life for the other..

Relationships based on emotion are relationships that never last and most relationships here, (ooh these so-called love relationhips) are really based on emotion. It is basically two individuals trying to statisfy their own needs.. The need to be wanted, the need for company, they need a companion, the need for someone who cares (all this so they can feel less lonely, or simply so they feel great!).. not that there's anything wrong with this, but if both are just trying to satisfy themselves, there is no real love..

Hacker Dan wrote:

The truth is that marage in the real world is or at least should be about love not reproduction. The chruch may see it this way but it dose not make it so.

In a marriage the husband is _required_ to love his wife. And i think i've given you the glimpse of what this love actually is.

Hacker Dan wrote:

Marage or at least the idea of it exists in many difrent relgiones and clutoruls and is hardly just uninque to the chirstion faiths.

Yea, most of these religions have a very similar idea of marriage as christianity... It's only recently that things are being redefined, because people have been greatly exposed to materialism. The materialistic society has plagued the minds of the people, because of this people have been objectified to the extent, just like these materials..

Hacker Dan wrote:

If the church you choises to fallow blives in elevtion thats great, and i am happy for you that you need peoleop to tell you what to blive.

The church simply states that evolution is a scientific theory. Which it is. It's not a matter of belief, again you are confusing the point... I've tried to tell you this, but you keep bringing this up.. A theory is a theory!

By confusing this point you've prolonged a foolish debate. There is really nothing to debate here, but there's a whole lot to argue isin't there?

[Tony]

rizzix wrote:

And i think i've given you the glimpse of what this love actually is.

Is that to imply that an infertile person cannot get married? They can't have _that_ kind of _love_. What if they adopt a kid? What if a gay couple adopts a kid? What if compsci.ca starts getting a bunch of google hits from using the word "gay" so much on this page?

rizzix wrote:

It's only recently that things are being redefined, because people have been greatly exposed to materialism.

You don't think it's because people have become more tollerant? More understanding of what it means to be of a different sexual orientation.. It's not by choice, people are born that way.. kind of like they are born with a certain skin colour. So how is "gays are not allowed to marry" any different from "certain ethnic group is not allowed to marry"?

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, people in Canada have the right to not be descriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Yet you demonstrate that you don't think so. It's this belief bias and perseverance that are troubling.