Neverside

Originally posted by hellomoto:

There is no real evidence to disprove creationism or evolution and it all comes down to what one believes.... [and] Forcing others to believe in something that is not proven, even with the scientific studies, is just nonsense. And the same goes for forcing people into believing a certain religion.

So why are we still debating this?

___________________

Neverside - In Development. Expected Release: Unknown.
Tortustudios.com - In Development. Expected Release: Summer 2006.( You can visit it now)

Last edited by kidd175, September 29th, 2006 03:30 AM (Edited 1 times)

Why do we get up in the morning?

But seriously, I'm debating this, mainly because there are some people who think that either theiry is indeed a fact, not a theory. Just trying to share my daily dose of common sense with others.

___________________

Quote:

Indeed. And to Tool, there really is no evidence for evolution above the evidence for creationism. Look at geological studies, and dinosaur bones, and pre historic human bones etc etc and so forth, and then look @ the bible, or documents similar to it for whatever religion there is to believe in. If we look at these bones, we can study them all we want, but the truth is, we can never develop a way to tell the 100% factual date of when those bones were "alive." We can guess, and experiment all we want, but unless we go back in time to when it actually happened, there is no way to tell that dinosaurs existed 100 million years ago or 10 thousand years ago.

We can't know anything 100% and just because we can't doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't chose one idea over another. Everything in life is based on an assumption and so long as those assumptions work better then other assumptions then it's perfectly acceptable to chose one over the other.

An example I like to use is the attendance of a school child. There is no evidence that the kid is in the class, thus we assume there is no kid in the class.
Absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

Quote:

Evidence means proof

I disagree. Evidence leads to proof (depending on how you define proof), but doesn't mean proof.

Quote:

What would be wrong with believing in god, just to have me in a casket, not living, no after life, nothing, after i die?

There's nothing wrong with belief in a god, but how you act based on those beliefs can be wrong.

Quote:

Forcing others to believe in something that is not proven, even with the scientific studies, is just nonsense. And the same goes for forcing people into believing a certain religion.

Quite, I don't think that?s what anyone is saying though, just like no one is saying you HAVE to believe that the earth is round. And you can never force anyone to believe anything

___________________

People without self-doubt scare me.
The world is my country, science is my religion. - Christiaan Huygens
“Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.”

Home||Truth|Love

Originally posted by HelloMoto:

If we look at these bones, we can study them all we want, but the truth is, we can never develop a way to tell the 100% factual date of when those bones were "alive." We can guess, and experiment all we want, but unless we go back in time to when it actually happened, there is no way to tell that dinosaurs existed 100 million years ago or 10 thousand years ago.

We don't need to know exactly when the bones were "alive", all we need to know is that certain bones were alive before others. And the scientific theories on which this comparative dating is based is all based on logic and thinking and evidence.

Originally posted by HelloMoto:

The documents that were passsed down such as the bible are probably different than when they were originally wirrten. And all documents, fact or fiction, are based on a person's opinion, in most cases.

My problem with the bible being used as an argument is that, unlike scientific theories which are considered "correct" until proven wrong, the bible on the other hand offers ideas and theories which cannot, in their very nature, be proven or verified, even if we were to go back in time. Moreover, we don't know who wrote the bible, or in what circumstances it was written. But we can be pretty darn sure the dinosaur bones weren't put there by someone.

I give much more credit to a theory based on a scientific method than to a theory based on a book.

___________________

"Sam says : Die!"

Last edited by MrCastle, November 11th, 2006 11:17 AM (Edited 1 times)

Originally posted by MrCastle:

Originally posted by HelloMoto:

If we look at these bones, we can study them all we want, but the truth is, we can never develop a way to tell the 100% factual date of when those bones were "alive." We can guess, and experiment all we want, but unless we go back in time to when it actually happened, there is no way to tell that dinosaurs existed 100 million years ago or 10 thousand years ago.

We don't need to know exactly when the bones were "alive", all we need to know is that certain bones were alive before others. And the scientific theories on which this comparative dating is based is all based on logic and thinking and evidence.

So what if God made the earth sort of a graveyard of sorts for dinosaurs. What if dinosaurs never lived? What if they were put there by God as a ruse so people don't get esphixiated with the real truth? It never mentions in the bible how God created the earth, or what was on the earth when man and plant and animal were created. It doesn't explain how God might have intentionally put these prehistoric things here to keep us going in 1 direction.

___________________

Originally posted by HelloMoto:

So what if God made the earth sort of a graveyard of sorts for dinosaurs. What if dinosaurs never lived? What if they were put there by God as a ruse so people don't get esphixiated with the real truth? It never mentions in the bible how God created the earth, or what was on the earth when man and plant and animal were created. It doesn't explain how God might have intentionally put these prehistoric things here to keep us going in 1 direction.

In order to be absolutely sure, we would have to act agnostic to everything. In reality, we are more practical than that. You seem to think that since we can't prove anything completely, then all theories have an equal probability to occur. The scientific method making a hypothesis then, using empirical evidence, making a conclusion on the likelihood that that hypothesis is true. Not all theories have an equal amount of evidence behind them, therefore they can not have an equal probability of occurrence.

There is no evidence for God, therefore it is highly unlikely that he exists. There is little evidence for creationism, and tons for evolution. They are not equal.

Last edited by Rad, November 13th, 2006 01:10 PM (Edited 2 times)

Originally posted by Rad:

In order to be absolutely sure, we would have to act agnostic to everything. In reality, we are more practical than that. You seem to think that since we can't prove anything completely, then all theories have an equal probability to occur. The scientific method making a hypothesis then, using empirical evidence, making a conclusion on the likelihood that that hypothesis is true. Not all theories have an equal amount of evidence behind them, therefore they can not have an equal probability of occurrence.

There is no evidence for God, therefore it is highly unlikely that he exists. There is little evidence for creationism, and tons for evolution. They are not equal.

The difference with most science is that we are able to live now and do studies on how our world works today. But, before humans existed, there's no clue what happened or how scientests believe it to have happened. It's based upon probability, not fact. Therefore, you can still add as much evidence you want into it, however, that does not make it true. Scientific theory is still a theory, it's just one that has been accepted as a probability due to scientific research. But do you know why there is no evidence of God? Obviously there is a reason. There are many possible reasons, none, not any more powerful than the next, such as the possibility that God doesn't exist, or that the evidence was hidden, and or removed, or masked to make people to not believe in God. Far fetched, maybe, but still, no disproof.

Both theories are uncertainties, no matter how hard one studies to try to find answers. Therefore, it can only come down to belief.

___________________

Ok Moto, I want you to define evolution, think about this, because I'm going to try and get critical here. (note, try, evolution isn't a strong point for me)

Example do you mean "micro" or "macro" Evolution?

Quote:

But, before humans existed, there's no clue what happened or how scientests believe it to have happened. It's based upon probability, not fact.

Prove there is no clue what happened... Have fun proving a negative.

Quote:

So what if God made the earth sort of a graveyard of sorts for dinosaurs. What if dinosaurs never lived? What if they were put there by God as a ruse so people don't get esphixiated with the real truth?

What if God didn't? What if they did?

These kinds of questions are pointless and get us no where, which is prescisely why they aren't used in science and frankly, good philosophy. If you could prove or at least give some evidence that there was a god and then prove or give evidence about how that god is then you might have some ground in making such claims.

___________________

People without self-doubt scare me.
The world is my country, science is my religion. - Christiaan Huygens
“Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.”

Home||Truth|Love

HM:
A couple of 'Evolutionary' articles....

This came out in October, not sure if its been read here.
Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/abs/nature05336.html

this came out nov 17
Scientists Examine ?Dark Energy? of Antigravity
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/science/16cnd-dark.ht ... e4e64&ei=5087%0A

creationism is a result of evolution...