Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it absurd to call someone who believes in Santa Claus stupid? Where do you draw the line?

If they're older than about 6-years old? Not at all.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: kage69

I'm not bashing anyone, just pointing out the absurdity of calling someone stupid and close-minded because they refuse to agree with your opinion

It's not absurd to call someone stupid or closeminded if they stick their nose up at the overwhelming mountain of evidence that proves evolution via natural selection. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Anyone who states otherwise is delusional, stupid, or both. Sorry. Darwin was largely right, people just need to deal with it. If that's going to prove destrutive to their fragile belief system, oh well. But hey, it's a free country - you can choose to live in a fairytale if you wish, no skin off my back (unless of course they insist on involving their dogma on me or my government, then we have a problem).

What fact? Give the one conclusive "fact" that shows exactly how the first bit 'life' started on Earth, and how humans evolved from that. Can you? If not, then no, it's not a "fact," but rather a theory that has a lot of support and some evidence to show that it 'could' have happened that way.

I agree that evolution has been shown to be real. And I personally believe in evolution as the genesis of modern humans - but not 100%. It *seems* like a reasonable idea, but not enough for me to shun each and every other possibility. If you think that makes me "delusional, stupid, or both," then so be it. I'm sure that I've been called worse by people more knowledgeable than you.

 

[TremblingFool]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I have no idea how humans came to be - whether we grew out of a puddle of gunk, evolved from other animals (that mysterious sprung up), were placed here by being(s) of higher intelligence, shite-out by a passing Space Walrus, etc - but I'm certainly going to keep my mind open about any and all potential possibilities. You, however, seem to have already decided which ones you can ignore. Must be nice to have all the answers..

You give equal consideration to your Space Walrus theory as you do to the theory of evolution? You call it open-minded, I call it stupidity. Some people ask questions, like "why?" and "how?" Evolution is an attempt to answer those questions. Creationism doesn't even seem to care.

Common sense tells me to disregard theories that are obviously BS. I can use this common sense to determine that you completely made up your theory that we are the feces of a giant, tusked space creature. This is the same reason I can disregard creationism.

If you want creationism taught in science classes, then why aren't you fighting for your other wonderful theories as well? They seem to be just as valid. Don't forget, you were the one that compared them to creationism, not me.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: kage69

I'm not bashing anyone, just pointing out the absurdity of calling someone stupid and close-minded because they refuse to agree with your opinion

It's not absurd to call someone stupid or closeminded if they stick their nose up at the overwhelming mountain of evidence that proves evolution via natural selection. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Anyone who states otherwise is delusional, stupid, or both. Sorry. Darwin was largely right, people just need to deal with it. If that's going to prove destructive to their fragile belief system, oh well. But hey, it's a free country - you can choose to live in a fairytale if you wish, no skin off my back (unless of course they insist on involving their dogma on me or my government, then we have a problem).

I think I'll take this one to the bank, and cash it.

:laugh:

 

[chess9]

ckgunslinger:

You've confused abiogenesis with evolution. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I'd suggest you discover the difference and come back when you are ready to talk to the adults about these issues.

Good grief.....

-Robert

 

[piasabird]

Evolution seem to be obvious phoney boloney to me. When I took general statistics I leaned that just because evidence appears to point to something, it does not make it true. I learned that a lie detector test is wrong more than it is right. I also learned that there are often factors that are overlooked. I think evolution has become the new religion of our age, and many are taught to beleive anything else is ignorance. The Catholic church probably taght the same things about the earth being flat.

There is a distinct difference between natural selection and evolution. Things become extinct for many reasons. That doesnt mean they have evolved.

 

[earthman]

Evolution is just a theory and religeon is just superstition.

 

[kage69]

Natural selection is a fact, backed by evidence. If you are even remotely educated on this topic you know what I'm refering to. You seemed to imply that support of this constitutes opinion, and that it's absurd to call someone stupid and close-minded over a differing opinion. My position is the refusing to acknowledge the evidence of natural selection over preference to creationism's silly and often-disproven mainstays is indeed close-minded and dare I say, stupid.

I recall your position (and those of others here) on this issue just fine from the multitude of flamewars, err.. I mean threads, that we've had here in the past. Please realize that I did not lump you in with the fundie zealots who expound the merits of young-Earth creationism.

Great, here we go, yet another thread mentioning Evolution that is going to turn into a flamefest... :roll:

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: TremblingFool

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I have no idea how humans came to be - whether we grew out of a puddle of gunk, evolved from other animals (that mysterious sprung up), were placed here by being(s) of higher intelligence, shite-out by a passing Space Walrus, etc - but I'm certainly going to keep my mind open about any and all potential possibilities. You, however, seem to have already decided which ones you can ignore. Must be nice to have all the answers..

You give equal consideration to your Space Walrus theory as you do to the theory of evolution? You call it open-minded, I call it stupidity. Some people ask questions, like "why?" and "how?" Evolution is an attempt to answer those questions. Creationism doesn't even seem to care.

Common sense tells me to disregard theories that are obviously BS. I can use this common sense to determine that you completely made up your theory that we are the feces of a giant, tusked space creature. This is the same reason I can disregard creationism.

I give consideration, but certainly not equal consideration. But if we were to find an alien civilization that approximately matched our intelligence, and 90%+ of them believed in some variant of a Space Walrus genesis, then I'd certainly want to research and study that possibility a bit further, instead of simply laughing and throwing it out completely. You claim that creationism doesn?t seem to care, but where do you get that idea? You probably simply made it up, as you may have spent very little time attempting to understand what Creationism is all about, or following current trends in the field. I may be wrong, as I don?t know you.

If you want creationism taught in science classes, then why aren't you fighting for your other wonderful theories as well? They seem to be just as valid. Don't forget, you were the one that compared them to creationism, not me.

You seriously dropped the ball on this one. I have absolutely NO interest in seeing Creationism taught in school. I?ve even been to my daughter?s school on several occasions to protest the seemingly religious undertones of some of the things she brings home. I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and hold Creationism as a religious issue, not a scientific one. You might want to be careful with those snap judgments. .

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: piasabird
Evolution is statistically improbable. Prove Man evolved.

Just because some species became extinct is not an indication of evolution.

Today we have people who study genetics and want to do cloning. It is not too absurd to thing mankind or an intelligent being could create a person through intelligent design. Just think of God as a very smart geneticist. The words for create in the bible that create was interpreted from have a literal meaning which means "To Organize!"

You are right. When you look at individual mutations, evolution is highly improbable. The odds are much, much worse than winning Powerball, for example.

Yet sooner or later, someone always wins Powerball. When you have trillions of mutations occurring over billions of years, even the highly improbable becomes almost certain. That is the basis for the Science of evolution.

Wait, so if the the highly improbably becomes almost certain, does that mean the highly improbable idea of a super-being coming into existinence over the course of billions of years, with the power to create humans, is almost certain as well? Or does it only apply to theories you *personally* like?

I don't have time to teach Fundamentals of Probability this morning, nor do I have time to teach Reading 101. I'll simply note two things. First, I did not claim there is no God, nor did I suggest that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. I'll leave that discussion for others.

Second, the degree to which the improbable becomes probable varies directly according to the number of trials and the probability of "success" on each trial. Once you can identify which events have a chance of producing your super-being, how frequently such events occur, and how likely each individual event is to produce the desired result, you can calculate when the overall probability of success exceeds 50%, 99%, or whatever threshhold you choose to set.

 

[chess9]

piasabird:

You obviously know nothing about evolution or abiogenesis. Why are you drawing conclusions with no data?

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Conjur:

BTW, nice post, again.

Yeah, I've been in tears since 1943....

-Robert

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: chess9
ckgunslinger:

You've confused abiogenesis with evolution. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I'd suggest you discover the difference and come back when you are ready to talk to the adults about these issues.

Good grief.....

-Robert

:roll:

I am perfectly aware of the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. And even more aware of how they are *both* relevant to this discussion. I suggest you take your condescending attitude and shove it someplace. And since the only relevant posts you have made to this thread so far are those that call us all stupid for not knowing the differences, I'd say you were the one not quite ready to [/i]"talk to the adults"[/i] yet.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: piasabird
Evolution is statistically improbable. Prove Man evolved.

Just because some species became extinct is not an indication of evolution.

Today we have people who study genetics and want to do cloning. It is not too absurd to thing mankind or an intelligent being could create a person through intelligent design. Just think of God as a very smart geneticist. The words for create in the bible that create was interpreted from have a literal meaning which means "To Organize!"

You are right. When you look at individual mutations, evolution is highly improbable. The odds are much, much worse than winning Powerball, for example.

Yet sooner or later, someone always wins Powerball. When you have trillions of mutations occurring over billions of years, even the highly improbable becomes almost certain. That is the basis for the Science of evolution.

Wait, so if the the highly improbably becomes almost certain, does that mean the highly improbable idea of a super-being coming into existinence over the course of billions of years, with the power to create humans, is almost certain as well? Or does it only apply to theories you *personally* like?

I don't have time to teach Fundamentals of Probability this morning, nor do I have time to teach Reading 101. I'll simply note two things. First, I did not claim there is no God, nor did I suggest that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. I'll leave that discussion for others.

LOL.. nor do I have time to teach Sarcasm 101, The Meaning of Emoticons, or Remedial I was Just Fvcking With Ya.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

#1 seems highly doubtful, based on observation and, if #2 is true and he is flawed, it wouldn't seem that God is much of an actual God.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: kage69
Natural selection is a fact, backed by evidence.

I agree with that and have not argued otherwise.

If you are even remotely educated on this topic you know what I'm refering to.

ok

You seemed to imply that support of this constitutes opinion, and that it's absurd to call someone stupid and close-minded over a differing opinion.

I?m not implying that at all. I support the theory of Natural Selection 99.9%.

My position is the refusing to acknowledge the evidence of natural selection over preference to creationism's silly and often-disproven mainstays is indeed close-minded and dare I say, stupid.

I agree with most of that.

I recall your position (and those of others here) on this issue just fine from the multitude of flamewars, err.. I mean threads, that we've had here in the past.

I seriously doubt that.

Please realize that I did not lump you in with the fundie zealots who expound the merits of young-Earth creationism.

Thanks.

Great, here we go, yet another thread mentioning Evolution that is going to turn into a flamefest...

It takes two to tango, as they say. I have no desire to turn this into anything other than a rational discussion on the topic at hand. From this single post alone, I have shown that I have agreed with you on just about everything you?ve posted, so why do you envision a flame-fest, if not for the simple reason you want to see one?

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

#1 seems highly doubtful, based on observation and, if #2 is true and he is flawed, it wouldn't seem that God is much of an actual God.

Some from the Great Books have argued something called Free Will?

Of course everyone has their own take on this.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

Why can't God intentionally create an imperfect being? What's the logic behind #2, just out of curiosity?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Martin
There's a great quote by HeroOfPellinor that goes something like "Hey moron, evolution isn't science, that's why they call it a THEORY"

it was in someone's sig. Hilarious.

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Hey, genius, evolution isn't science. That's why its called a theory.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Regardless, if you are standing next to me and either call my daughter stupid for believing in Santa or my grandmother stupid for believing in God, I'm probably going to attempt to physically shove your head up your ass, or pull it out, as the case may be.

Help! The e-tough-guy is on the loose again!

 

[chess9]

tlc:

Uh, you might want to take that little idea back to the drawing board.

-Robert

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

#1 seems highly doubtful, based on observation and, if #2 is true and he is flawed, it wouldn't seem that God is much of an actual God.

Some from the Great Books have argued something called Free Will?

Of course everyone has their own take on this.

I've read some of those arguments but they address only our imperfect thoughts, not our imperfect physical being. Babies are born deformed and retarded every single day in this world. Does a benevolent God intentionally cripple people or start them and not even allow them to be born? Or did God screw up genetics?

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

Why can't God intentionally create an imperfect being? What's the logic behind #2, just out of curiosity?

The thinking behind it is that in order to be able to create imperfection you have to be able to think and/or act imperfectly. If a being can think or act imperfectly it is, by definition, an imperfect being itself.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: chess9
tlc:

Uh, you might want to take that little idea back to the drawing board.

-Robert

Naw. I've mulled it over for years and have honed the arguments fairly well. It's a variation on Descarte's ontological argument (the 5th meditation).

But, hey, I'm not perfect so...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: earthman
Evolution is just a theory and religeon is just superstition.

And they both require a faith to believe in

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: earthman
Evolution is just a theory and religeon is just superstition.

And they both require a faith to believe in

Yeah, but you don't see some dude on TV at 2:00am asking for monetary contributions in the name of Charles Darwin so he can rid some poor soul of the devils that possess him.