 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
People seem to use whatever definition that suits their side of the argument. That is one reason why I seldom enter into the debates anymore. We spend the first 200 posts arguing semantics. And loingurger if I offended you back then I apologize. But thanks for posting that link because I am not going to go over that debate again here. There is a good book on the subject that I suggest to anyone who is interested in chaos theory, self organization and the like: A Case against Accident and Self Organization by Dean Overman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Hey, I remember that meaningful information debate! It was fun for awhile, but ultimately it left a sour taste in my mouth. Slander indeed. |
Oh please don't go there. You'll bring that dreadful Ethelred back. One of you is bad but the presence of the both of you would be quite intolerable
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
How could Australia import creationism from America? Australia's immigration laws are among the toughest in the western world. For an American to become an Australian citizen he would have to be a multimillionaire. There aren't that many ultra-rich who are also creationists. If a native Australian fundamentalist plagerized creationist propaganda published by an American that is not the same as importing the movement from the USA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Let me ask a simple question:
Regardless of how you think the Universe and Life begun (with or without God), does anyone here dispute any of the following:
The age of earth, according to current geological theory;
The workings of sexual and natural selection (just the everyday workings, like how pesticide resistent bugs come into being, according to this model);
Models of how genetics work, and genes are passed down from x to y generations.
I ask this to find out who here fit the basic Gudanovian definition of a creationist (believes God created) vs. the innitially assumed hard-core literal intepretation of bible and full repudiation of the Theory of evolution?
The Most important aspect of this being the origin of Man: Must man have been created specifically by God, as in the Bible, or did Man come about through a process (wether the process is God driven or not) in time?
Personally, i go with the mainstream of scientific thought on all counts, and I do not believe in the existence of some individual sentient conciousness known as 'God'. What about the rest of you? |
I personally believe all of the proved portions of evolution including the adaptation of organisms to their environment and variation that enables quite dramatic changes in life. Even the "evolution" of a frog from a tadpole is amazing regardless of the theory of evolution. There is no denying that dramatic possibilities of variation and adaptation exist within creation however it started.
As far as the creation of man goes, there is no contradiction between observed reality and the Bible. But that is a topic for another thread. The idea that all of life evolved from a single cell however is pure speculation and a statement of faith. One God has one signature on all of life. That was discovered about half a decade with the insight into DNA. Some say that that proves all of life came from one cell which is fine but that is no less faith than my opinion that it came from one God, especially in light of other evidence that refutes the concept of self organization of information.
Both sides of the dabate are led to metaphysics, one side however at least admits as much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Types of creationism
Twentieth-century creationists follow many paths. The young earth creationists believe in a single, special creation that occurred only several thousand years ago. They are the defenders of the most strictly literal biblical view.
Old earth creationists also believe in a single, special creation, but believe it took place billions of years ago.
Day-age and gap creationists believe that the present universe came about through stages of creation, such as would have occurred if the seven "days" of Genesis were actually seven very long ages (day-age), or if there were long gaps between the days of creation (gap).
The Theory of Abrupt Appearance contends that everything in the universe appeared suddenly in its current form, without predecessors. Abrupt Appearance is the doctrine of creation science without mention of the Creator--an attempt to skirt the First Amendment which does not allow advocacy of religion in the public school classroom.
[Other euphemisms to disguise attempts to bring religious views into the science curriculum include arguments against evolution, alternative theories, balanced treatment, intelligent design theory, and irreducible complexity.]
In all the above cases, creationists deny the possibility that one kind of organism can evolve into another. None of these forms of creationism can be reconciled with scientific evidence from biology, geology, biochemistry, paleontology, biogeography, embyrology, and many other relevant fields. According to Gallup polls, about 44 percent of Americans believe in a strict biblical creationist view.
Theistic evolution, accepted by most major religious groups and 40 percent of Americans, states that God is the Creator, but that He works through the process of evolution, as revealed through modern science. With this approach, there is no necessary conflict between religion and acceptance of evolution as a scientific idea, and so it is not surprising that many people of great faith accept the theory of evolution. [Source: National Center for Science Education]
A pretty good essay IMO, providing background information, is the source of the above. http://www.loudoun.net/mainstream/E...on.htm#response
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
DrStrangelove,
One does not have to be an Australian citizen to visit Australia with a tourist visa. Nor does an American need to be a multimillionare to become an Australia citizen. I'm proof, or will be when I become a citizen in a little over two years.
Charles Birch, Australia's theologian scientist emeritus considers American creationists to be at the root of the Australian creationist movement:
"...the head of the Creation Research Institute, Dr Gish, has visited here a number of times, and he is the one who has imported the ideas here. Otherwise I think we’d be fairly free of it."
From http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30...ies/s546314.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Boshko, regarding Muslim creationism I quote:
The magazine Science, the leading periodical of the scientific community, has also emphasized the impact and sophistication of the works of Harun Yahya and the SRF. In article titled "Creationism Takes Root Where Europe, Asia Meet", the commentary read:
Experts call it (the SRF) the best organized and financed in the Islamic world... They've also swamped the country with sophisticated books such as The Evolution Deceit and The Dark Face of Darwinism (both published under the pseudonym Harun Yahya), which some scientists complain have become more influential than textbooks in certain parts of the country*..
.. BAV (SRF) does not appear to be a bastion for gray beards or backward zealots. "The BAV members I met were mainly young professionals who described themselves as Islamic moderates who are trying to harmonize the Koran with science," says science historian Ronald Numbers of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, author of The Creationists. He's one of the few U.S. experts who has interviewed the group's "honorary president," Adnan Oktar, who according to BAV writes the Yahya books--many of which have been translated into English.
Experts say BAV has developed one of the world's strongest antievolution movements outside of North America and has been making inroads in other Muslim nations.
From: http://www.srf-tr.org/comments.htm
*Turkey
Last edited by Ironikinit on 29-10-2002 at 23:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
There is always threads like this poping up. Dont you guys get tried of talking about this stuff?? It also seems like people on each side hate each other. This reminds me of the threads people start complaining about Civ3 for some reason.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
Creation?
I am a firm believer in evolution, but evolution has nothing to do with orgin or creation.
Does how the universe was created in tale that it was created from something?
Where was this God before He made everything?
What did He make it from?
Did this something or place give to our something or place, would that be considered evolution or creation?
Personally, I feel that explaining the creation of the universe with a "Big Bang" is just as arbitrary as saying that some supreme being made it out of nothing.
Thus, I feel that both are intrinsically wrong in so much that they can't and haven't explained my questions above.
Who will solve the riddle? No one. Ywt, If someone does, would they try to recreate it. Yes, because that is what man tries to do. What happens when man learns how to create a universe? Do they become a god? Or just evolved? Silly questions, I know. Yet, this leads to...
What method would best be used to discern such orgins, assuming that such a thing can be discerned?
Scientific Method: Problem yields Theory yields Testing yields Data yeilds Conclusion (new theory/hypothesis or solid proof).
Religious Method: Problem yields Theory that is accepted as proof by faith (whatever that is)
Seems to me that Religion has already stopped looking for the answers, ergo science will be the victor according to current scoring.
Yet. If science discovers and reproduces the creation process would that make science akin to religion, at that time? Looks like religion begat science, and in the end science begat religion... or would that be in the end?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
Not to be a MrFun, but I'm still waiting for those who accuse those who teach evolutionary theory of being "dogmatic" in their approach to answer my questions...
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Having taken biology courses that discuss evolution, I failed to see anything dogmatic about it. It seemed to me to a pretty clear presentation of what we believe to be scientific fact and what supports that fact. Could you support these assertions with examples? Personally, I've yet to see a question by Creationist about evolution that was not answered more than satisfactorally by evolutionists--at least from scientific standpoint. I have, however, seen Creationists repeatedly use the same flawed arguments when it is demonstrably shown the logic behind them do not hold water (Watchmaker, for instance).
Again, I've never seen this. How can anything taught in a science course that is based on scientific theory be an agenda? Its not a politics or sociology course, it's science. In every other scientific field, the prevalent and accepted theories are given the same treatment. Why should we make an exception for non-evolutionary theories just to satisify people with religious agendas? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ironikinit
DrStrangelove,
One does not have to be an Australian citizen to visit Australia with a tourist visa. Nor does an American need to be a multimillionare to become an Australia citizen. I'm proof, or will be when I become a citizen in a little over two years.
Charles Birch, Australia's theologian scientist emeritus considers American creationists to be at the root of the Australian creationist movement:
"...the head of the Creation Research Institute, Dr Gish, has visited here a number of times, and he is the one who has imported the ideas here. Otherwise I think we’d be fairly free of it."
From http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30...ies/s546314.htm |
If Gish is an American then he is exporting the ideas to Australia, not importing them. The people who are importing the idea are those who are receptive to them. Don't blame us for what your people are willing to believe.
The Christian Identity movement was founded by a looney English bishop years ago. These are the folks who believe that Christians are the real Jews and that Jews are actually fakes. They're the ones who rubbed shoulders with Timothy McVeigh, giving him a sort of encouragement towards his Oklahoma City endeavor. Don't you just hate it when the English loonies import their crackpot ideas into the country?
I know this is off topic, but I had a friend, a software engineer who worked in Australian academia for a couple of years. He was even then an accomplished programmer. He liked Australia so much that he applied for a permanent visa so that he could found a company based on some of his ideas. He had the recommendations of the university department he had worked for even though he had finished his work there. He was turned down, returned to the US and is now a multimillionaire who owns his own (still) successful software company. Your loss, our gain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Duane Gish is definitely a Usian. The head of ICR is a certain Dr. Henry Morris, Gish is his second in command. |
OK, but Gish just visited Australia. Some Australian counterpart must be in charge of disseminating these ideas. Who?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
Okay, since I seem to have recalled an episode where Richard Dawkins ran into some deceptive Australian creationists, I digged around on the net. There is an article published by the Australian Skeptics on this:
quote:
Recently Professor Dawkins had been made aware of a video tape being circulated in creationist circles, in which he appears, and on the cover of which is his photograph. Titled From a Frog to a Prince, it is distributed in the Australia by Answers in Genesis, of Acacia Ridge, Queensland and in the USA by American Portrait Films, Cleveland, Ohio. Copyright is held by "A.I.G. - I.C.R. - Keziah" and it was produced by "Keziah".
AIG, as regular readers will recognise, refers to Answers in Genesis, the new trading name of the Queensland based Creation Science Foundation; ICR is the Institute of Creation Research, a prominent US creationist outfit, and the source for much of what passes for information in such circles; Keziah was then unfamiliar to us.
Prof Dawkins was puzzled, and not a little perplexed, to be informed by a Christian contact in the USA that his appearance on the tape included a question being posed to him, whereupon he pauses for 11 seconds, and then answers an entirely different question. His contact, having viewed the tape, and having noticed the long pause and seeming evasion of what was a pretty simple question about evolution, was convinced that it had been a set-up.
As he hadn't then seen the tape, it was difficult for Richard to comprehend the full details, but he was suspicious of the circumstances, and sought our assistance in tracking down Keziah, which he thought was an Australian company. We had no information about Keziah, though we did recall a request from a woman purporting to represent American Portrait Films, for an interview with Richard while he was in Australia as our special guest at the 1996 Australian Skeptics annual convention in Melbourne. Subsequently, we managed to track down Keziah Productions to Peregian in Queensland. |
So would it be possible that it's somebody associated with this Keziah Productions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:23
|
|
Rogan:
quote:
First of all, Creationism cannot be disproven.
Secondly, believing in creation is a religious belief - not a scientific one.
In other words, they may adopt a philosophy which is different from yours without denying the data or giving up critical thought. |
I think you have confused creationism with something else... Possibly with what Lincoln claims creationism to be.
Maybe we should set this definition thing straight from the beginning.
A creationist is someone who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis. This covers not only the creation of the universe, but also the man and the various species of animals.
From dictionary.com:
cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm) n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
From the EB:
Creationism: also called Creation Science, or Scientific Creationism; counterevolutionary, fundamentalist theory or doctrine that postulates that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing.
Also from the EB:Creationism grew as a result of the advancement of evolution that was evident after the publication in 1859 of Darwin's Origin of Species. Within two decades, most of the scientific community had accepted some form of organic evolution. Many religious leaders, however, feared that a less-than-literal reading of the biblical story of creation would result in a loss of faith; and well-known spokesmen for the cause—such as William Jennings Bryan—saw modern war and other purported signs of moral decay to be evidence of the damage brought about by the teaching of godless evolution.
I hope that settles things... I personally think the claim that a creationist is someone who merely believes that God created the universe is disingenious. Possibly created to deliberately muddle the debate.
And now you see why someone who believes in creationism should not recieve a PhD in Biology? It is not because a religious philosophy, it is because he would have to reject evolution...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-10-2002 20:33
)
|