Evolution vs. Creationism

[bayoutider]

I'm hoping Readers Digest will come out with a condensed version.

 

[CrimsonNan]

There are too many pages of this thread to read them all, but someone has pointed out that evolution makes no attempt to predict how life BEGAN, right? Evolution only explains how SPECIATION occurs.

Evolution denial is really only present among people with a political or religious agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views.

YOU haven't read all the pages in this thread??? Ohhhhhhhh you've missed it!!!! It's funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[Bamalaw92]

YOU haven't read all the pages in this thread??? Ohhhhhhhh you've missed it!!!! It's funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

I don't see a rule requiring anyone to read more than her little head can handle. :biggrin:

 

[blackumbrella]

"simply acknowledging the role of our brains in understanding religious concepts, esp in light of the fact that so much of religion is pure 'idea,' having no physical antecedent." This reduces faith to a mere chemical process in the brain....something I do not agree with.

i understand but don't think it's as reductive as you seem to. actually i think it's reductive to rule out that sort inquiry. imagine fmri-ing people while they pray. in fact i bet someone's done it already. wonder what ahppened.

"even if you take biblical events as historical and literal, what you're really interacting with are stories or cultural memories, things whose only trace is now 'mental.'"
All memories and history are mental. That has nothing to do with whether basic core truths can be changed by "changing perspectives".

don't get me wrong. i'm not trying to boil everything down to berkeleyian solipsism, but how we know of whatever core truths exist out there has alot to do with our perspective and the perspectives of those we communicate with, both of which certainly change with time.

 

[bamabake]

There are too many pages of this thread to read them all, but someone has pointed out that evolution makes no attempt to predict how life BEGAN, right? Evolution only explains how SPECIATION occurs.

Evolution denial is really only present among people with a political or religious agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views.

And promoting a theory that cannot be proven as a fact is a dishonest way to teach kids about the universe and is currently being shoved down the throats bya minority of Americans who have a secular agenda.

 

[Bamalaw92]

i understand but don't think it's as reductive as you seem to. actually i think it's reductive to rule out that sort inquiry.

I disagree, so we will have to agree to disagree

imagine fmri-ing people while they pray. in fact i bet someone's done it already. wonder what ahppened.

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here.

don't get me wrong. i'm not trying to boil everything down to berkeleyian solipsism, but how we know of whatever core truths exist out there has alot to do with our perspective and the perspectives of those we communicate with, both of which certainly change with time.

Again, you and I will have to agree to disagree. IMO Core truths are never a matter of perspective.

 

[It's On A Slab]

FMRI= Functional Magnetic Resolution Imaging......

I disagree, so we will have to agree to disagree

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here.


Again, you and I will have to agree to disagree. IMO Core truths are never a matter of perspective.

In layman's terms: an MRI.

There have been brain scans done on those who pray, along with some interesting analysis of the parts of the brains that are firing....

We now have the neurobiological evidence, from the studies of Andrew Newberg, M.D., that certain parts of the brain shut down and others light up during deep meditation. The fMRI work from Richie Davidson in Wisconsin on Tibetan monks also shows a shutting-down. This might explain how we access states of cosmic consciousness and unity. Whether this is a correlation or a cause, and what this means about the content of those experiences, we have no idea.


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/147/story_14706_1.html

 

[Bamalaw92]

In layman's terms: an MRI.

There have been brain scans done on those who pray, along with some interesting analysis of the parts of the brains that are firing....

We now have the neurobiological evidence, from the studies of Andrew Newberg, M.D., that certain parts of the brain shut down and others light up during deep meditation. The fMRI work from Richie Davidson in Wisconsin on Tibetan monks also shows a shutting-down. This might explain how we access states of cosmic consciousness and unity. Whether this is a correlation or a cause, and what this means about the content of those experiences, we have no idea.


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/147/story_14706_1.html

I know what an FMRI is, I don't see how it is applicable to the discusion we are having. What if anything does it "prove" with regard to core truths being or not being changed by perception?

 

[COBamaFan]

It looks like something along these lines has been said before, but clearly bamabake doesn't understand, so here goes ...

I’m curious, bamabake, if you doubt if germs cause disease, if the earth goes around the sun, if mass is made up of atoms, if electricity is powering the computer screen you’re using to read this very sentence, or if gravity is keeping the computer on your desk? All of those are just ‘theories.’ The theory of evolution is on as solid footing (and, in many cases, more solid footing) as all of those theories. Scientists understand that to call something a ‘theory’ is not at all pejorative.

You see, bamabake, no scientific theory can be proven. Scientific theories can only be 1) supported by observations or 2) not supported by observations. You might feel more comfortable using the word ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’ instead of ‘observations.’ Scientific theories are support by facts, not proven as fact.

Based on your clearly limited understanding of science, it’s dishonest to teach children any scientific theory! Arguing that angle would at least be consistent and I would respect it. But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re unfairly singling out evolution for religious and/or political reasons. In reality, it’s no more dishonest to teach children evolution then it is to teach them that the sun is the center of the solar system.

There is no debate within the scientific community about evolution. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences guide, “There is no debate within the scientific community that evolution has occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred …”

 

[bamabake]

It looks like something along these lines has been said before, but clearly bamabake doesn't understand, so here goes ...

I’m curious, bamabake, if you doubt if germs cause disease, if the earth goes around the sun, if mass is made up of atoms, if electricity is powering the computer screen you’re using to read this very sentence, or if gravity is keeping the computer on your desk? All of those are just ‘theories.’ The theory of evolution is on as solid footing (and, in many cases, more solid footing) as all of those theories. Scientists understand that to call something a ‘theory’ is not at all pejorative.

You see, bamabake, no scientific theory can be proven. Scientific theories can only be 1) supported by observations or 2) not supported by observations. You might feel more comfortable using the word ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’ instead of ‘observations.’ Scientific theories are support by facts, not proven as fact.

Based on your clearly limited understanding of science, it’s dishonest to teach children any scientific theory! Arguing that angle would at least be consistent and I would respect it. But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re unfairly singling out evolution for religious and/or political reasons. In reality, it’s no more dishonest to teach children evolution then it is to teach them that the sun is the center of the solar system.

There is no debate within the scientific community about evolution. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences guide, “There is no debate within the scientific community that evolution has occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred …”

Your pitiful condecending attitude aside..



I’m curious, bamabake, if you doubt if germs cause disease, if the earth goes around the sun, if mass is made up of atoms, if electricity is powering the computer screen you’re using to read this very sentence, or if gravity is keeping the computer on your desk? All of those are just ‘theories.’ The theory of evolution is on as solid footing (and, in many cases, more solid footing) as all of those theories. Scientists understand that to call something a ‘theory’ is not at all pejorative.
Why is there gravity? What holds an atom togather? When you state that the theory of evolution is on solid ground you are just wrong. I also didnt infer that calling something a theory was parjorative.

Evolution denial is really only present among people with a political or religious agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views.

Howver this comment by you was. So I responded using your logic.


You see, bamabake, no scientific theory can be proven. Scientific theories can only be 1) supported by observations or 2) not supported by observations. You might feel more comfortable using the word ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’ instead of ‘observations.’ Scientific theories are support by facts, not proven as fact.

Youe see CB, no scientific theory can be proven. Scientific theories can only be 1) supported by obervations or 2) not supported by observations. By your own standard evolution fails the test. It is not supporatble by observation. Before you start spouting out all of the typical suppositions out there to try and prove it is read the thread. I dont have the energy to answer every one again.


Based on your clearly limited understanding of science, it’s dishonest to teach children any scientific theory! Arguing that angle would at least be consistent and I would respect it. But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re unfairly singling out evolution for religious and/or political reasons. In reality, it’s no more dishonest to teach children evolution then it is to teach them that the sun is the center of the solar system.


First off, I am quite sure you are no rocket scientist. Second I am sure that I am as educated and as well versed or more on this subject and, you know, maybe a few more. I didnt single out a damn thing. The thread was about this topic. I simply said it was dishonest as a retort to :

Evolution denial is really only present among people with a political or religious agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views

So when you atop insulting people that dont "buy into" this theory, I will do the same.


There is no debate within the scientific community about evolution. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences guide, “There is no debate within the scientific community that evolution has occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred …”[/QUOTE]

This is just plain ignorance. Maybe you are not as well versed as I thought. Rather narrow minded or your understanding is limited to a secular college course or pop culture.

 

[Tide and True]

I dont have the energy to answer every one again.

In fact, you didn't have the energy to answer them the first time either. Remember?

 

[blackumbrella]

I know what an FMRI is, I don't see how it is applicable to the discusion we are having. What if anything does it "prove" with regard to core truths being or not being changed by perception?

i know we disagree, but we can still discuss. here's one possibile application (hopefully others can think of better ones): the classic econ game involving two participants (one is given 100$ and has to make an offer to the other. if the other declines the offer as unfair, no one gts any money) has been studied using brain imaging tech. in all cases of gauging or evaluating offers, the orbitofrontal cortex is very active, but in rejections, where an evaluation of unfairness was made, the anterior cingulate became active as well. now , imagine a similar dissociation between say thinking about a personal mythology (jesus and the loaves perhaps) and believing that mythology to be literally true or factual. you could then do a distance study, looking at a population or an individual over time, or a cross-denominational study.

 

[Bamalaw92]

i know we disagree, but we can still discuss. here's one possibile application (hopefully others can think of better ones): the classic econ game involving two participants (one is given 100$ and has to make an offer to the other. if the other declines the offer as unfair, no one gts any money) has been studied using brain imaging tech. in all cases of gauging or evaluating offers, the orbitofrontal cortex is very active, but in rejections, where an evaluation of unfairness was made, the anterior cingulate became active as well. now , imagine a similar dissociation between say thinking about a personal mythology (jesus and the loaves perhaps) and believing that mythology to be literally true or factual. you could then do a distance study, looking at a population or an individual over time, or a cross-denominational study.

We are going in circles here which is why I choose to just agree to disagree. None of what you speak proves or disproves that core truths are changed by perception. This is where you and I are apparently having a disconnect. I believe their are core truths to the universe setup by and created by God. What I know of these core truths have been revealed to me by God IMO. Not every Christian and certainly not every person believes as I do. We are humans and only God can reveal the core truths. Your experiment presupposes there is no God and that the core truths are simply what man as a collective has come to accpet as the truth. I do not believe this. If it does not presuppose the nonexistence of God, then you are attempting to prove God's existence through the measurement of "majority" of what your experiment supposedly says pepople "really" believe. It is to put it mildly, junk science. You speak of Jesus and the loaves (As well as the fish I presume) as mythology. I believe it happened the way it is described. If a machine showed that based on the scientists interpretation of the data that I REALLY didn't believe it, that does nothing to show whether core priniciples can be changed by perception.

As much as you like to exercise your vocabulary, I will again say that you and I will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ramah Jamah]

And promoting a theory that cannot be proven as a fact is a dishonest way to teach kids about the universe and is currently being shoved down the throats bya minority of Americans who have a secular agenda.

You probably do not see the irony here. There is more evidence for evolution that there is for creationism. We have no evidence that there is a God, does that mean that He does not exist? Till the 1960s we had no evidence that there was a dark side of the moon does that mean it could not be taught till then? We have evidence but not hard fact that the center of the Earth contains magma but we teach it. We have no evidence of black holes but we teach it. There are all kinds of things that are essentially unprovable. But when it comes to evolution we have a ton of evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. Just read it. This isn't being "shoved down the throats by a minority of American who have a secular agenda" Even most Christians do not believe in a literal reading of Genesis http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html so it's not a minority of Americans. As for a "secular agenda", I don't have any agenda other than we should let science be taught by scientists and religion be taught by religous leaders.

 

[blackumbrella]

As much as you like to exercise your vocabulary, I will again say that you and I will have to agree to disagree.

aww man, just when we were sowing the seeds of love, you go and throw a cockle in my field. lol. but really, we might have to agree to disagree about how we disagree too. if a core truth is something factual in the world, a tree falling in the forest, then i feel that event is true per se, even though different observers may have different perceptions of the event, and if the event is recounted over and over and the those intial perceptions become perceptions further and further from the first and perhaps increasingly divergent as well, that doesn't change the fact that something happened, but it does change how that something is understood. i think where we disagree is that to some degree you don't believe you're yourself (i mean by self body). you seem to believe your body and spirit to an extent are separable things. and your spirit has been given a certain 'knowledge' that you call 'core truth' that you'll retain even if shot in the brain, developing alzheimers, or having a stroke. if god and jesus are indeed real things, something i don't know, then they were real before you were born and they'll be real when you're gone, but insofar as you have any knowledge of them, i believe that knowledge is in your brain, and is just as vulnerable to brain damage as your pin number or the name of your prom date.

 

[COBamaFan]

No, bamabake, you are wrong and ignorant of the situation. Evolution is supported by as much evidence and as many observations as the theory of gravitational attraction or the theory that matter is made up of atoms. Evolution can be observed and has been observed. Just crack a biology book and education yourself (I can, if you’d prefer, supply numerous references that explain how, when, and where evolution has been observed). Again, evolution denial only exists among people with a religious or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views (like you just did with the ‘evolution cannot be observed’ comment … and you got your theories backwards: creationism cannot be observed. Not that creationism and evolution talk about even remotely the same thing, but you've confused them so I'll go with it). Evolution is a valid scientific theory (and by valid I mean supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence). Sorry, bamabake, but that is a fact.

Oh, bamabake, you really out did yourself this time. I am, in fact, a rocket scientist (it sucks when you really mess something like that up, huh? I’ve done it a few times). I’ll be more than happy to supply my credentials if you don’t believe me. You are clearly not as well versed on this subject as I am or you wouldn’t be attempting to maintain your ridiculous stance on it.

You did single out evolution. And that is the part of the problem. Again, as much evidence supports evolution as all the theories I listed. If you’re going to blast evolution for being just a ‘theory’ and not worthy of teaching children, then you have to be willing to not teach any of the scientific theories I listed. Of course, you don’t want to take that position because it makes you sound crazy, but that’s the boat you’re in. So, which is it going be: no evolution and diseases are caused by demonic possession or evolution and germs cause disease?

You decide.

And, I’m sorry you found the tone of my last post insulting. It was.

 

[blackumbrella]

handprint

 

[wisten]

What a thread.. I think just about everything has been said, but BamaLaw put it best... "agree to disagree" ...

just about anything else is

 

[bamabake]

In fact, you didn't have the energy to answer them the first time either. Remember?

Of course not. I am still waiting for you to prove the new theory. Remember?

 

[bamabake]

No, bamabake, you are wrong and ignorant of the situation. Evolution is supported by as much evidence and as many observations as the theory of gravitational attraction or the theory that matter is made up of atoms. Evolution can be observed and has been observed. Just crack a biology book and education yourself (I can, if you’d prefer, supply numerous references that explain how, when, and where evolution has been observed). Again, evolution denial only exists among people with a religious or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views (like you just did with the ‘evolution cannot be observed’ comment … and you got your theories backwards: creationism cannot be observed. Not that creationism and evolution talk about even remotely the same thing, but you've confused them so I'll go with it). Evolution is a valid scientific theory (and by valid I mean supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence). Sorry, bamabake, but that is a fact.

Oh, bamabake, you really out did yourself this time. I am, in fact, a rocket scientist (it sucks when you really mess something like that up, huh? I’ve done it a few times). I’ll be more than happy to supply my credentials if you don’t believe me. You are clearly not as well versed on this subject as I am or you wouldn’t be attempting to maintain your ridiculous stance on it.

You did single out evolution. And that is the part of the problem. Again, as much evidence supports evolution as all the theories I listed. If you’re going to blast evolution for being just a ‘theory’ and not worthy of teaching children, then you have to be willing to not teach any of the scientific theories I listed. Of course, you don’t want to take that position because it makes you sound crazy, but that’s the boat you’re in. So, which is it going be: no evolution and diseases are caused by demonic possession or evolution and germs cause disease?

You decide.

And, I’m sorry you found the tone of my last post insulting. It was.

How nice. Class is obviously something you didnt get from your zillion year old family tree.

cheers