22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[the joint]

Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.

Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!

Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.

The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.

1) Creationism is a theory.  Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc.  Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria.  

2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about.  But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies?

3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda).

4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid.

Sure, but they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes.

I would discard anything that cannot be falsifiable.

I was pointing that creationism didn't came from scientific skepticism, it's only purpose is to serve a political and religious agenda.

Sorry, didn't wan't to give the impression of ad-populum, just pointing out, those other sects eventually gave out creationism and have accepted reality, only some US sects are still pushing creationism mainly for political purposes.

What about one of the unfalsifiable assumptions made my science, i.e. we live in a positivistic Universe?  This is unfalsifiable because we could never remove all minds from the Universe and still observe it so as to describe it as positivistic.  Would you then discard this assumption, even though it enables the scientific method?  

[1715444312]

1715444312

[interlagos]

Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.

Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!

Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.

The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.

1) Creationism is a theory.  Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc.  Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria. 

2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about.  But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies?

3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda).

4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid.

Sure, but they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes.

I would discard anything that cannot be falsifiable.

I was pointing that creationism didn't came from scientific skepticism, it's only purpose is to serve a political and religious agenda.

Sorry, didn't wan't to give the impression of ad-populum, just pointing out, those other sects eventually gave out creationism and have accepted reality, only some US sects are still pushing creationism mainly for political purposes.

How about we define what it actually means to "Create" before judging about "Creationism".
If we have a word for it, it must mean something, right?

People often ask for the evidence of God.
If we define God as an ultimate Creator,
then any evidence of creation would be the evidence of God, right?

Now, how about we all spend 5 minutes to create a little plane out of peace of paper,
to demonstrate to ourselves the evidence of God.

God is not out there, it's inside.

[pedrog]

Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.

Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!

Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.

The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.

1) Creationism is a theory.  Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc.  Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria.  

2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about.  But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies?

3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda).

4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid.

Sure, but they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes.

I would discard anything that cannot be falsifiable.

I was pointing that creationism didn't came from scientific skepticism, it's only purpose is to serve a political and religious agenda.

Sorry, didn't wan't to give the impression of ad-populum, just pointing out, those other sects eventually gave out creationism and have accepted reality, only some US sects are still pushing creationism mainly for political purposes.

What about one of the unfalsifiable assumptions made my science, i.e. we live in a positivistic Universe?  This is unfalsifiable because we could never remove all minds from the Universe and still observe it so as to describe it as positivistic.  Would you then discard this assumption, even though it enables the scientific method?  

It is falsifiable, you just need to prove the god of the bible, for example.

But you're trying to enter Metaphysics and Philosophy and there's no need for that when it comes to Evolution or Creationism.

[pedrog]

How about we define what it actually means to "Create" before judging about "Creationism".
If we have a word for it, it must mean something, right?

People often ask for the evidence of God.
If we define God as an ultimate Creator,
then any evidence of creation would be the evidence of God, right?

Now, how about we all spend 5 minutes to create a little plane out of peace of paper,
to demonstrate to ourselves the evidence of God.

God is not out there, it's inside.

In this topic we are discussing fundamental Christian creationism, the 6000 year Earth, Adam and Eve, flood, that stuff, just read Bible's first book.

[interlagos]

How about we define what it actually means to "Create" before judging about "Creationism".
If we have a word for it, it must mean something, right?

People often ask for the evidence of God.
If we define God as an ultimate Creator,
then any evidence of creation would be the evidence of God, right?

Now, how about we all spend 5 minutes to create a little plane out of peace of paper,
to demonstrate to ourselves the evidence of God.

God is not out there, it's inside.

In this topic we are discussing fundamental Christian creationism, the 6000 year Earth, Adam and Eve, flood, that stuff, just read Bible's first book.

Ok, got it.
I've always had little doubt that the story in the Bible was manipulated,
so I never went as far as to actually read it

[Phinnaeus Gage]

And God said, "Let there be letters like E, I, G, G, N and R." (2 Gs because He is Who He Is)
And Man said, "But, don't put them in a certain order, Jehovah."
And another Man said, "You will rot in hell for using God's name in vane."
Then Man said, "But it's in the Bible."
Whereupon another men chimed in, "I will seek you out and kill you and your family for..."
And Man said, "Chill, dude! We weren't talking about those radical fuckers that live in caves."
Whereupon another group of men chimed it, "See those two towers over there? One day they'll fall."
Whereupon..., "Dude, that was an inside government job."
Whereupon..., "Can't we all just get along?"
Whereupon..., "Go fuck yourself, nigger!"
And the Devil said, "Nice place you got there, Jehovah Boy!"
And God said, "Go fuck yourself!"

[hilariousandco]

And God said, "Let there be letters like E, I, G, G, N and R." (2 Gs because He is Who He Is)
And Man said, "But, don't put them in a certain order, Jehovah."
And another Man said, "You will rot in hell for using God's name in vane."
Then Man said, "But it's in the Bible."
Whereupon another men chimed in, "I will seek you out and kill you and your family for..."
And Man said, "Chill, dude! We weren't talking about those radical fuckers that live in caves."
Whereupon another group of men chimed it, "See those two towers over there? One day they'll fall."
Whereupon..., "Dude, that was an inside government job."
Whereupon..., "Can't we all just get along?"
Whereupon..., "Go fuck yourself, nigger!"
And the Devil said, "Nice place you got there, Jehovah Boy!"
And God said, "Go fuck yourself!"

I wonder if you're ever going to say something that's even remotely funny.

[Peter Lambert]

And God said, "Let there be letters like E, I, G, G, N and R." (2 Gs because He is Who He Is)
And Man said, "But, don't put them in a certain order, Jehovah."
And another Man said, "You will rot in hell for using God's name in vane."
Then Man said, "But it's in the Bible."
Whereupon another men chimed in, "I will seek you out and kill you and your family for..."
And Man said, "Chill, dude! We weren't talking about those radical fuckers that live in caves."
Whereupon another group of men chimed it, "See those two towers over there? One day they'll fall."
Whereupon..., "Dude, that was an inside government job."
Whereupon..., "Can't we all just get along?"
Whereupon..., "Go fuck yourself, nigger!"
And the Devil said, "Nice place you got there, Jehovah Boy!"
And God said, "Go fuck yourself!"

Oh, look, the guy with the most posts on Bitcointalk came here to shit on the thread by adding a post which does not even relate to the topic. Suprise suprise!

[jcoin200]

I don't dispute that there is plenty of so called "horizontal variation" within species, but there just is no physical evidence to back evolution as it is stated. 

Earlier in a thread I linked to a study that observed E. coli evolving into salmonella. I would call that physical evidence.

Googling "ecoli evolving into salmonella" doesn't seem to pull up any sort of hard physical evidence.  But even if this was "observed" does that allow you to infer every creature in history has undergone this process?

I am still wondering what your theory is as to why hundreds of millions of years of "evolution" occurring over 8 million species did not leave a trace of one mutating or "evolving" into another completely different species.

If you guys want to hinge your view on "evolution" on single celled organisms and bacteria, which really don't prove anything, then I would have to question your logic.

Again, I will ask you for some sort of hard physical evidence of hundreds of millions of years of these single celled organisms becoming all 8 million species we now know today.

[the joint]

Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.

Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!

Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.

The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.

1) Creationism is a theory.  Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc.  Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria.  

2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about.  But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies?

3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda).

4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid.

Sure, but they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes.

I would discard anything that cannot be falsifiable.

I was pointing that creationism didn't came from scientific skepticism, it's only purpose is to serve a political and religious agenda.

Sorry, didn't wan't to give the impression of ad-populum, just pointing out, those other sects eventually gave out creationism and have accepted reality, only some US sects are still pushing creationism mainly for political purposes.

What about one of the unfalsifiable assumptions made my science, i.e. we live in a positivistic Universe?  This is unfalsifiable because we could never remove all minds from the Universe and still observe it so as to describe it as positivistic.  Would you then discard this assumption, even though it enables the scientific method?  

It is falsifiable, you just need to prove the god of the bible, for example.

But you're trying to enter Metaphysics and Philosophy and there's no need for that when it comes to Evolution or Creationism.

Proving that God of the Bible exists wouldn't falsify the assumption of a positivistic Universe specifically because God's omnipotence would preclude any paradoxes that arise (e.g. an omnipotent, monotheistic god would be able to create simultaneous states such as a Universe that is both positivistic and non-positivistic).

And, the point I've been trying to make this entire thread is that the scientific method does just that -- it carries purely philosophical and unfalsifiable (at least empirically) assumptions.  But yet, while its assumptions are philosophical and non-empirical, it cannot allow philosophical or other purely abstract ideas or proofs to be incorporated into any theory it produces.  For example, a logical tautology or mathematical proof indicating that a positistic universe is impossible could not be used to explain a set of evidence and create a theory about it, even though it's a simple matter of deductive reasoning.  Instead, science forces us to use only empirical evidence in building a theory, and only through replicable instances (but NOT logical or mathematical proofs) can these theories be strengthened. 

[pedrog]

Proving that God of the Bible exists wouldn't falsify the assumption of a positivistic Universe specifically because God's omnipotence would preclude any paradoxes that arise (e.g. an omnipotent, monotheistic god would be able to create simultaneous states such as a Universe that is both positivistic and non-positivistic).

And, the point I've been trying to make this entire thread is that the scientific method does just that -- it carries purely philosophical and unfalsifiable (at least empirically) assumptions.  But yet, while its assumptions are philosophical and non-empirical, it cannot allow philosophical or other purely abstract ideas or proofs to be incorporated into any theory it produces.  For example, a logical tautology or mathematical proof indicating that a positistic universe is impossible could not be used to explain a set of evidence and create a theory about it, even though it's a simple matter of deductive reasoning.  Instead, science forces us to use only empirical evidence in building a theory, and only through replicable instances (but NOT logical or mathematical proofs) can these theories be strengthened. 

Sure, because that's how the Universe works.

But the path you're trying take isn't topic related, the Earth still is billions of years old, a global flood never happened and humans and dinosaurs never coexisted...

[Peter Lambert]

Proving that God of the Bible exists wouldn't falsify the assumption of a positivistic Universe specifically because God's omnipotence would preclude any paradoxes that arise (e.g. an omnipotent, monotheistic god would be able to create simultaneous states such as a Universe that is both positivistic and non-positivistic).

And, the point I've been trying to make this entire thread is that the scientific method does just that -- it carries purely philosophical and unfalsifiable (at least empirically) assumptions.  But yet, while its assumptions are philosophical and non-empirical, it cannot allow philosophical or other purely abstract ideas or proofs to be incorporated into any theory it produces.  For example, a logical tautology or mathematical proof indicating that a positistic universe is impossible could not be used to explain a set of evidence and create a theory about it, even though it's a simple matter of deductive reasoning.  Instead, science forces us to use only empirical evidence in building a theory, and only through replicable instances (but NOT logical or mathematical proofs) can these theories be strengthened. 

Sure, because that's how the Universe works.

But the path you're trying take isn't topic related, the Earth still is billions of years old, a global flood never happened and humans and dinosaurs never coexisted...

Technically, Birds are classified in the clade of Dinosaurs. So dinosaurs and humans have coexisted for the entire history of humans.

[the joint]

Proving that God of the Bible exists wouldn't falsify the assumption of a positivistic Universe specifically because God's omnipotence would preclude any paradoxes that arise (e.g. an omnipotent, monotheistic god would be able to create simultaneous states such as a Universe that is both positivistic and non-positivistic).

And, the point I've been trying to make this entire thread is that the scientific method does just that -- it carries purely philosophical and unfalsifiable (at least empirically) assumptions.  But yet, while its assumptions are philosophical and non-empirical, it cannot allow philosophical or other purely abstract ideas or proofs to be incorporated into any theory it produces.  For example, a logical tautology or mathematical proof indicating that a positistic universe is impossible could not be used to explain a set of evidence and create a theory about it, even though it's a simple matter of deductive reasoning.  Instead, science forces us to use only empirical evidence in building a theory, and only through replicable instances (but NOT logical or mathematical proofs) can these theories be strengthened. 

Sure, because that's how the Universe works.

But the path you're trying take isn't topic related, the Earth still is billions of years old, a global flood never happened and humans and dinosaurs never coexisted...

It's apparent/evident the Earth is billion of years old from our perspective of where we are.  If you were near the event horizon of a black hole, you would reach a different conclusion.  Here it seems that way; over there, it seems different.  I'm not versed in the research supporting or denying a global flood, and I have no comment about the humans/dinosaurs thing because there is no scientific definition of 'species' that perfectly accounts for all living and dead...specimens.

In any case, the entire thread is almost off-topic since evolution has almost nothing to do with Creationism.

[BCEmporium]

In any case, the entire thread is almost off-topic since evolution has almost nothing to do with Creationism.

The topic itself is misguided, it's directed to people who believe in Evolution.
Science is not a belief system.

[the joint]

In any case, the entire thread is almost off-topic since evolution has almost nothing to do with Creationism.

The topic itself is misguided, it's directed to people who believe in Evolution.
Science is not a belief system.

Science, like any academic discipline, is a theory about knowledge acquisition.

Creationism is a theory about the origin of the Universe and its contents.

[cp1]

Science, like any academic discipline, is a theory about knowledge acquisition.

Creationism is a theory about the origin of the Universe and its contents.

Fairy tales aren't theories.

[the joint]

Science, like any academic discipline, is a theory about knowledge acquisition.

Creationism is a theory about the origin of the Universe and its contents.

Fairy tales aren't theories.

The definition of *anything* is a theory about that thing.  A theory doesn't need to be scientific; ones that are are called scientific theories.  Scientific theories must meet a certain kind of criteria, but other theories can have other criteria.

[pedrog]

Science, like any academic discipline, is a theory about knowledge acquisition.

Creationism is a theory about the origin of the Universe and its contents.

Fairy tales aren't theories.

The definition of *anything* is a theory about that thing.  A theory doesn't need to be scientific; ones that are are called scientific theories.  Scientific theories must meet a certain kind of criteria, but other theories can have other criteria.

Again:

"they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes."

[the joint]

Science, like any academic discipline, is a theory about knowledge acquisition.

Creationism is a theory about the origin of the Universe and its contents.

Fairy tales aren't theories.

The definition of *anything* is a theory about that thing.  A theory doesn't need to be scientific; ones that are are called scientific theories.  Scientific theories must meet a certain kind of criteria, but other theories can have other criteria.

Again:

"they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes."

Well, that's stupid.  You mean they're proposing that Creationism meets *all* the criteria for a scientific theory?
I know that I've heard about it being taught in schools, but I didn't assume that it was being put forth as a scientific theory.

[BCEmporium]

Well, that's stupid.  You mean they're proposing that Creationism meets *all* the criteria for a scientific theory?
I know that I've heard about it being taught in schools, but I didn't assume that it was being put forth as a scientific theory.

AFAIK some States, like Kentucky, did it and included it under "Sciences". At Europe, IDK about Ireland the only country with "anti-Heretic laws", but I believe none did such thing.