 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Wanna bet that you are just as "dogmatic" as I?
|
Not at all. If you can present me with superior evidence for creationism I'll accept it because I like to think that I'm an intellectually honest person. Until you can do so, I'll stick with the veritable mountain of pro-evo. evidence thankyou very much  .
quote:
Oh come on, get a grip. It's certain that he believes in Creationism as a result of his upbringing, but to insult his intelligence and integrity or suggest that someone should not be allowed to earn a PhD because of their religious beliefs is just not on.
|
Well said. It's a theory, not necessarily a ticket to stupidity. While there may well be a correlation they are hardly mutually exclusive.
quote:
Bottom line: Creationists and Evolutionists are equally intelligent on average. We are all human and we all have the same capacity for learning. What makes the difference is our upbringing and where we get our education. This has the greatest influence on what we believe.
|
Actually I'd be willing to bet that creationists score lower in IQ tests, but basic relativism kicks in, one theory is supported by a mountain of evidence, the other is supported by bullshit. With regards to people of PhD level being creationists, there is a place in the human being for belief and science, certainly those scientists who agree with creation as a science and not a faith are a statistical anomaly, which says nothing about the weight of pro-evo. evidence. Often in my experience the creationist tendencies form as a result of the extreme complexity and unlikeliness of life, which is dealt with by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason and some basic structuralism.
Determinism 
quote:
I'll rephrase. I know lots of PhD-level scientists working in biomedical research who believe in creationism (in various forms).
|
See above.
quote:
A Doctorate's of Divinity is just as difficult to get as any other degree and it takes an intelligent person to get one, too, so yes it does count.
|
Yes but intelligence is fundamentally irrelevant to this debate unless you want to bring Ad Hominem into this. You could talk about the holocaust and say Hitler was intelligent, which indeed he was, but that says nothing about the holocaust itself.
quote:
Anyway, the bible account of creation is demonstrably false. And a lot of american fundie creationists believe in it. Take, for example, the claim that God created the Universe 6000 to 20,000 years ago. We know today that the universe is a lot older than that. If you want to claim otherwise, you have the burden of proof. But prepare yourself to be pwned and make a fool of yourself.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:18
|
|
Did you guys know that there is over a dozen schools of thought for Creationsim? Some of them aren't even Christian based. Here's some of the more ridiculous ones.
quote:
Flat Earthers
Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.
International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
Charles K. Johnson
Geocentrism
Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible. "It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say." (Willis 2000) Both flat-earthers and geocentrists reflect the cosmological views of ancient Hebrews. Geocentrism is not common today, but one geocentrist (Tom Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science methodology.
Biblical Astronomer, Cleveland, OH
http://www.biblicalastronomer.org/
Gerardus Bouw
Creation Science Association for Mid-America, Cleveland, MO.
http://www.csama.org/
Tom Willis
Young-Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.
Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, CA.
http://www.icr.org/
Henry Morris (president emeritus), John D. Morris (president), Duane Gish, Steven A. Austin, Larry Vardiman, Kenneth B. Cumming, Andrew Snelling, ...
Whitcomb, John C. & Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1961)
Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1974, 1985)
newsletter: Acts & Facts (includes Back to Genesis and Impact)
Answers in Genesis (AIG), Florence, KY.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Ken Ham
periodical: Creation Ex Nihilo
Creation Research Society (CRS), St. Joseph, MO.
http://www.creationresearch.org/
D. Russell Humphreys, Wayne Friar, Donald B. DeYoung, Eugene F. Chaffin
periodical: Creation Research Society Quarterly
Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL.
http://www.drdino.com/
Kent Hovind
Carl Baugh
Creation Evidences Museum, Glen Rose, TX.
Omphalos
The Omphalos argument, first expounded in a book of that name by Philip Henry Gosse (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, indeed that an appearance of age is necessary. This position appears in some contemporary young earth creationist writing. For example, Whitcomb & Morris (1961, p. 232) argue that earth's original soils were created appearing old. The position is sometimes satirized by suggesting that the universe was created last week with only an appearance of older history.
Old Earth Creationism
Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accomodating their religion with science.
American Scientific Affiliation, Ipswich, MA.
(This groups has mostly OEC members, but it doesn't turn away members and has some YEC and Theistic Evolutionist members, too.)
http://www.asa3.org/index.html
periodical: Perpsectives on Science and Christian Faith
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
There is a very interesting book by a bio-chemist with a Phd who refutes the theory of evolution. (Im' at work and dont remember the title). He is not a creationist either.
His point is that while micro-evolution is proven, macro-evolution has not been proven.
I personally believe in evolution, but this book opened my eyes to the fact that maybe evolution or creationism aren't the answer. Perhaps, like so many other times in scientific history, the accepted scientific fact is eventually replaced by another theory not yet thought of or discovered.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
no thats not the one I was referring to, Whaleboy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
Like I said, it was a book I read a couple years ago. When I get home I'll post the title and author.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
There are no "universal truths," just facts and theories. You are right that there are no irrefutable theories in science - but you cannot refute facts, which are just measurements of this universe. Data points, so to speak.
|
True, my point is that a theory is still contingent (for want of a better word baring in mind PSR) because it is subject to evidence to the contrary. Those data points are subject to the same doubt as any epistemlogical question, which is irrelevant here so for the sake of argument, those points are "fact".
quote:
Intelligent Design isn't Bible based is it? And I've read that there are other schools that are not Bible based.
|
Correct, ID as a theory can exist atheistically, though for obvious reasons it is most compatible with the creationists  . It is basically looking at the fantastic complexity and unlikeliness of the universe and saying that because of those fantastic odds, it is more likely that there was an intelligent design of sorts. Hence, you may find this sentiment among a minority of microbiologists, who are subject to the sharp end of this complexity.
This is, however, easily dealt with by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient reason, which says that contingent possibilities aren't really so, and that deterministically, since the universe has already occured, the probability of the universe occuring is in fact 1. If you roll a dice now, the odds of getting a given number is 1/6. If you've already rolled, say, a four, then the odds of you rolling four with that throw were 1. Because it deterministically refutes contingent possibility, anyone who brings Copleston into this is going to get pwned   .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
It appears that most of the posters on this thread missed the fact that most of the people answering the poll did not want to see creationism replacing evolution in the public school curriculla. Therefore it would appear that the majority of Americans are not hard-core fundies, but are happy to reconcile their religious beliefs with science.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
Before Creationists wet themselves over one poll from CBS with a small sample size, maybe they should read this:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/ne..._11_19_2004.asp
quote:
Public view of creationism and evolution unchanged, says Gallup
A recent article from the Gallup News Service reports on the pollster's latest results concerning public opinion on the evidence for evolution, creationism, and biblical literalism. Because Gallup's polls on public opinion on creationism extend back to 1982, its data are particularly useful. The results are overall consistent with previous polls conducted by Gallup.
To assess public opinion on the evidence for evolution, Gallup asked, "Do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence, or don't you know enough about it to say?" Polled in November 2004, 35% of the respondents said that evolution is well-supported by evidence, 35% said that it is not, 29% said that they didn't know enough about it to reply, and 1% expressed no opinion. These results are similar to those in 2001, the first year in which Gallup asked the question.
Demographically, the article reports, belief that evolution is well-supported by the evidence is strongest "among those with the most education, liberals, those living in the West, those who seldom attend church, and ... Catholics," and weakest among "those with the least education, older Americans ..., frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans."
To assess public opinion on creationism, Gallup asked:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?
Polled in November 2004, 38% of respondents chose (1), 13% chose (2), 45% chose (3), and 4% offered a different or no opinion. These results are also similar to those from previous Gallup polls, which extend back to 1982.
The article explains that the 10,000 year date was included in the 1982 poll question because "it roughly approximates the timeline used by biblical literalists who study the genealogy as laid out in the first books of the Old Testament." It is perhaps worth remarking that not all biblical literalists agree on interpreting the Bible as insisting on a young earth: there are old-earth creationists, for example, who accept the scientifically determined age of the earth and of the universe, but still accept a literal reading of the Bible and reject evolution.
To assess public opinion on biblical literalism, Gallup asked, "Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man?" Polled in November 2004, 34% of respondents regarded the Bible as to be taken literally, 48% regarded it as divinely inspired but not always to be taken literally, 15% regarded it as a collection of fables, etc., and 3% expressed no opinion. Again, these results are similar to those from previous Gallup polls.
(Story from the Gallup News Service)
November 19, 2004
|
So, despite a massive, concerted effort over the last 20 years by Creationists to sway public opinion on the matter, people's opinions remain unchanged. I'm sure we'll here more intellectual-bashing over the evidence that educated people are much more likely to believe in evolution...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
The Bible says nothing about the age of the world. Biblical scholars have calculated the age of the world based upon the "generations of man" enumerated within the text. The Bible didn't tell them to do that, they thought that up themselves.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-11-2004 00:10
|