Darwin / Creationism Thread (Split from Will humanity split thread)

[PeterGrant]

All sounds like a load of silly nonsense to me. These people should be trying to actually prove their base mantra, i.e Darwin's Theory of the Origin of the Species before they expect us to take them seriously with drivel like this.

What an easy job these people have, dreaming this stuff up and looking for stuff to give their musings credibility. they might as well work for the council.

[hibadelic]

Originally Posted by PeterGrant
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All sounds like a load of silly nonsense to me. These people should be trying to actually prove their base mantra, i.e Darwin's Theory of the Origin of the Species before they expect us to take them seriously with drivel like this.

Isn't it generally scientifically accepted? It's impossible to prove 100% without waiting a while.

[PeterGrant]

Originally Posted by hibadelic
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Isn't it generally scientifically accepted? It's impossible to prove 100% without waiting a while.

We are asked to believe it as a perceived truth, Some scientists accept it, some don't. But it's only a theory. If it was proven it would be a theorem.

I have my doubts, personally.

[hibadelic]

Originally Posted by PeterGrant
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have my doubts, personally.

Care to share the reasons for your doubts?

[PeterGrant]

Originally Posted by hibadelic
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Care to share the reasons for your doubts?

In the absence of proof either way I consider a creationist hypothesis or even intelligent design to be more likely than the theory presented in Darwin's book.

[arthurduncan]

Originally Posted by PeterGrant
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We are asked to believe it as a perceived truth, Some scientists accept it, some don't. But it's only a theory. If it was proven it would be a theorem.

I have my doubts, personally.

people (often creationists or other religious types) use the phrase "only a theory" to mean something like "best guess". (in passing, typically such people conveniently choose not to use these words to descibe their own systematic religious commitments). Darwin's theory is considerably more robust than that. As you imply, absolute proof is impossible in any non-mathematical science so highest predictive power, resistance to disproof remain the best standards for judging it. So far it's doing pretty well.

I would be very careful about discouraging "crazies" from coming up with their "theories" as this is where scientific progress can often come from (think Galileo etc). I think it is a legitimate question to ask what human evolution holds and we shouldn't be too precious about the results. If we find them morally questionable then perhaps we should say why, argue with them or even withhold their funding, but we shouldn't be too quick to challenge their right to say it.

[hibadelic]

Originally Posted by PeterGrant
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In the absence of proof either way I consider a creationist hypothesis or even intelligent design to be more likely than the theory presented in Darwin's book.

So in the absence of 100% proof which you know is impossible to achieve, and despite the evidence that does exist, you choose to believe something with no evidence for and plenty against? Doesn't the weight of almost all the world's scientists convince you slightly? You really think it's more likely that the world is less than 10,000 years old?

[Hampden_Hibby]

Originally Posted by PeterGrant
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In the absence of proof either way I consider a creationist hypothesis or even intelligent design to be more likely than the theory presented in Darwin's book.

Spoken like a true believer. "I don't understand it and I don't know how or why so I'll just blame the Jolly Green Giant."

[hibadelic]

Sorry - made a total hash of trying to split this thread into two to avoid the hijack. May have lost a couple of posts, it was an accident
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PeterGrant]

Originally Posted by hibadelic
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So in the absence of 100% proof which you know is impossible to achieve, and despite the evidence that does exist, you choose to believe something with no evidence for and plenty against? Doesn't the weight of almost all the world's scientists convince you slightly? You really think it's more likely that the world is less than 10,000 years old?

How can you possibly say there is no evidence in support of creationism or intelligent design?

All the world's scientists support Darwin do they?

I never said the world was less than 10000 years old. But it's about as likely as us evolving from apes.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by arthurduncan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

people (often creationists or other religious types) use the phrase "only a theory" to mean something like "best guess". (in passing, typically such people conveniently choose not to use these words to descibe their own systematic religious commitments). Darwin's theory is considerably more robust than that.

Maybe so. But it is just a theory. It is often inferred to be something more, in a totally unscientific way, simply because the 'debate' has become so daftly ideological.

there are wholly secular alternatives to darwin's theory of evolution, that imho don't get sufficient air time because of the ridiculousness of the whole situation.

[PeterGrant]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe so. But it is just a theory. It is often inferred to be something more, in a totally unscientific way, simply because the 'debate' has become so daftly ideological.

there are wholly secular alternatives to darwin's theory of evolution, that imho don't get sufficient air time because of the ridiculousness of the whole situation.

I totally agree.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by PeterGrant
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All sounds like a load of silly nonsense to me. These people should be trying to actually prove their base mantra, i.e Darwin's Theory of the Origin of the Species before they expect us to take them seriously with drivel like this.

sorry to make a perhaps stereotypical assumption of a chap named after peter grant, but if you are perchance a catholic, you should be aware you are slating, amongst others, the vatican's chief scientists...

edit - erm I meant as proponents of darwinism not this quackery about two species

[SKII]

Why do I suddenly think of Miracle on 34th Street...?

In Santa we trust.

[PeterGrant]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

sorry to make a perhaps stereotypical assumption of a chap named after peter grant, but if you are perchance a catholic, you should be aware you are slating, amongst others, the vatican's chief scientists...

I am a practicing Catholic with fairly conservative, traditionalist views. I'm under no obligation to agree with Vatican scientists though.

[hibadelic]

Originally Posted by PeterGrant
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How can you possibly say there is no evidence in support of creationism or intelligent design?

All the world's scientists support Darwin do they?

I never said the world was less than 10000 years old. But it's about as likely as us evolving from apes.

I didn't say all the world's scientists, I said almost all. It'd be pretty hard to justify creationism as a scientist I'd imagine.

Creationists generally believe the Earth is about that age don't they? As for Intelligent Design, if you look hard enough for the explanation that best fits your views, you'll probably find it. Again, about as scientific as tarot cards.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by PeterGrant
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am a practicing Catholic with fairly conservative, traditionalist views. I'm under no obligation to agree with Vatican scientists though.

No you're not, but i'm not sure why i conservative catholic seems to be adhering to evangelical protestant ideas.

[Croxleyhibby]

Originally Posted by CadgeMac
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

God created the world in 6 days and then took a snooze. Thats good enough for me.

Peter, you will find on here that people are prepared to enter into intelligent and informed debate and will not resort to sectarian abuse as was the case on Footymad. Your baiting wil not work so I look forward to getting to know the real Peter Grant.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PeterGrant]

Originally Posted by hibadelic
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I didn't say all the world's scientists, I said almost all. It'd be pretty hard to justify creationism as a scientist I'd imagine.

Creationists generally believe the Earth is about that age don't they? As for Intelligent Design, if you look hard enough for the explanation that best fits your views, you'll probably find it. Again, about as scientific as tarot cards.

No way do almost all of the world scientists support Darwin's Theory of the Origin of the Species. It's actually becoming for and more fashionable/acceptable for scientists to doubt darwin.

[PeterGrant]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No you're not, but i'm not sure why i conservative catholic seems to be adhering to evangelical protestant ideas.

Very interesting! Need to pop out right nowbut I'll come back to you on this shortly. Cheers!

[PeterGrant]

Originally Posted by Croxleyhibby
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Peter, you will find on here that people are prepared to enter into intelligent and informed debate and will not resort to sectarian abuse as was the case on Footymad. Your baiting wil not work so I look forward to getting to know the real Peter Grant.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I've never posted anything sectarian in my life!!!! I'm glad to find a board where people can be decent to each other in spite of team loyalties. I didnt actually enjoy the sectraian abuse I received every day on footymad, believe it or not.