This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

100 years later, creationism is the new evolution

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. 100 years later, creationism is the new evolution

User Info: CIA911

CIA911
7 years ago#21
Says the guy who believes he knows exactly what deity created us, the rough details of how said deity created us, and pretty much every major opinion said deity holds.

The first 2 I get from the Bible, the last one I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about about, I have never claimed to know that. In fact, it's when the atheists go "God wouldn't be like this" or "God doesn't have a reason to do that" that I say no one can know God's thoughts or his ways since they aren't the same as ours. The Bible is the only thing we can even use to get a rough idea of how God is, but obviously that doesn't tell us everything, and we still can't know all of his thoughts/ways/opinions.
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

User Info: actarus

actarus
7 years ago#22
zyzzvya01 posted...

No intelligent design or creationist "evidence" against evolution has ever been published in a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal because first of all, it is not real science, and second, there currently is no evidence that contradicts what we know about evolution.
...
Face it, both creationism and ID are just Christian political movements designed to allow the proselytizing of Christianity to our schoolchildren and to the public in general.


You should first learn to do research before you bash honest scientists
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark

User Info: ledzepfan15

ledzepfan15
7 years ago#23
The Bible is the only thing we can even use to get a rough idea of how God is, but obviously that doesn't tell us everything, and we still can't know all of his thoughts/ways/opinions.

That doesn't stop people from giving reasons as to why god did does something. Then when they are unable to defend the reasoning any further, they end the conversation with "god is mysterious."

Or maybe that's my experience.
"If you think, you are late. If you are late, you use strength. If you use strength, you tire. And if you tire, you die." - Saulo Ribeiro

User Info: CIA911

CIA911
7 years ago#24
That doesn't stop people from giving reasons as to why god did does something. Then when they are unable to defend the reasoning any further, they end the conversation with "god is mysterious."

People shouldn't try to explain God's reasoning behind things unless they are 100% certain based on the Bible, and can show why they think that. God is...mysterious. And has a different thought process than every person on this planet. Pretending to know what he thinks and why he does certain things unless they are recorded specifically why in the Bible is a waste of time in my opinion. That's why whenever I say things about why God does something I always like to have some scripture handy, so at least then I could show people why I think that. Outside of that I don't bother trying to get into God's mind.
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

User Info: Faust_8

Faust_8
7 years ago#25
You should first learn to do research before you bash honest scientists
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


Published doesn't mean accepted truth, though. It is the first step to getting taken seriously, but if it's the only step you have...it's equally meaningless.

If any of those those journals/books were actually considered sound and/or correct...do you really think 99% of all scientists would accept evolution? There are more scientists named Steve that accept evolution than all the scientists named anything that think it has big flaws.

IDers (aka creationists, it's the same damn thing) may be able to poke tiny little holes in very specific things, but the framework of the theory will not be proven wrong. Ever. It's stood for over 150 years now, the whole time weathering the storms of creationists.
"We think the future that we will find together is greater than the assumptions of our past."

User Info: Julian_Caesar

Julian_Caesar
7 years ago#26
Umn. Have you read about the history of evolutionary theory?

That is all I have to say.


You mean the part where Darwin actually used the term "black box" to describe the fact that his evolutionary theory had many unexplainable gaps, that he hoped would be explained in the coming years? Because that's what I was referring to.

I'm well aware that evolutionary theory predated Darwin. But there's a reason he gets all the credit for it: he put forth the version that got the most press. And in terms of my original post, creationism has been around quite a while too. But there's a reason why recent ID supporters are taken to represent "all of creationism theory" in the same way Darwin came to represent all of evolutionary theory: their version gets a lot more press.

As far as I know, evolution as an opposing theory to creationism wasn't even a major concept before Darwin came along. But an unintended concept of his discoveries was that people began using it to challenge the idea of the age of the world...and hence, its origins, even though any serious scholar could have told them that the Bible never actually says how old the earth is. Thus the media-fabricated debate was born. And at its inception, it was unpopular to side with the "evolutionists"; nowadays, it's unpopular to side with "creationists." That's what I mean when I say creationism is the new evolution, 100 years later: a certain minority of people will support it just because they want to be different from other people.
"I don't think you can run a double-blind experiment with an omniscient being as the subject." -- kozlo100

User Info: Julian_Caesar

Julian_Caesar
7 years ago#27
IDers (aka creationists, it's the same damn thing) may be able to poke tiny little holes in very specific things, but the framework of the theory will not be proven wrong. Ever. It's stood for over 150 years now, the whole time weathering the storms of creationists.

This is the exact sort of media-fabricated foolishness I'm talking about. Evolution has not "weathered the storms of creationists" for 150 years. The only "storms" between evolution and creationism are the ones created by ignorance and arrogance on both sides. A "storm" that is being perpetuated even more vigorously by our current generation, which is supposedly better informed and educated than any previous one (which shouldn't be as much of a surprise as it is to most people). It turns out that removing arrogance and ignorance is not accomplished by increasing information and education....how shocking!

Also, please refrain from assuming that all creationists/IDers believe in a young earth, or believe that evolution is false, or believe that Genesis ought to be taught alongside evolution in a classroom. And by continuing to apply such meaningless stereotypes to your opposition, you are merely reinforcing the equally inaccurate stereotypes that creationists have about you.

EDIT:
If any of those those journals/books were actually considered sound and/or correct...do you really think 99% of all scientists would accept evolution?

I think Galileo would take offense at your suggestion that we reject a theory just because the established scientific community disagrees.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that evolution is the way things happened. But appealing to authority to settle an argument is against everything that science stands for. Appealing to authority is an acceptable method when arguing about particular facts or data points for which expert interpretation is necessary. It is not a good way to argue about something like evolution.

If you're truly serious about getting creationists to shut up, just tell them that you're both right. Tell them that evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, any more than the theoretical existence of God would rule out the possibility of evolution. It doesn't violate the validity of your original point in any way. And it's an excellent test of your own motives too...because if you can't bring yourself to say it, then chances are that you're arguing for the purpose of winning an argument, not for the purpose of actually supporting evolution as a theory.
"I don't think you can run a double-blind experiment with an omniscient being as the subject." -- kozlo100

User Info: zyzzvya01

zyzzvya01
7 years ago#28
Intelligent Design does not make testable predictions and is not falsifiable, and therefore is not real science. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show me, or even better show the scientific community.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. 100 years later, creationism is the new evolution

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived