Creationism smack-down!

Originally posted by Suzianne
I've said many times, Science answers the How? while Religion answers the Why? And they each answer their own question expertly.

This is why putting ALL your eggs into one basket is not enough. They each have their place. But each one also fails spectacularly when asked to explain the other's question. Science cannot answer the Why? as Religion cannot answer the How?

Simple enough. Case closed.

But the "why" parts of religion's answers are little more illuminating than "because it does".

Why are we here? Because God put us here
Why do bad things happen to good people? Because God decided we must all pay for "original sin"
Why should we not kill people, or steal from them, or ...? Because God says it's a sin
and so on...

I dare say that there has never been a "why" provided by religion that could not be equalled or bettered by a why that did not come from religion.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"They're still wrong, but that doesn't make their opposition right."

Wrong? How?[/b]

Whenever you are in possession of the answer but feel it necessary to work backwards to make the particulars fit, you're bound to be wrong.

Let the truth guide the path and the lover of truth will never be disappointed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
A single cell is a huge deal, how did it get that complex?

Not a problem for evolution to answer. I said earlier that I don't know with certainty how the first cells came to be, but how biodiversity came about through the evolutionary process. Incidently, the very first cells would for obvious reasons have been much simpler than even the simplest cells today. Evolution is all about accumulation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"when they... they... are you still reading?.. hello?.. "

I try to treat you with respect, can I get the same from you?

Your replies always going back to abiogenesis questions when discussing evolution shows little respect, to be perfectly honest. If you want to start with a first cell and learn what science knows today about how multi-cellular organisms first formed, how organs developed and how we know what organs formed first and approximately when, what the evidence is that allows us to know these things with a fair amount of certainty (the same kind of certainty that allowed Eratosthenes to calculate a good estimate of earth's circumference without actually travelling around the world, or viewing it from space), I'm game. But you seem mildly interested in what science has been able to explain, and strangely obsessed with criticising what remains to be explained. With that mindset, the need to have every little mystery about the world explained right this instant, I can only ask you to sit back for however many years it will take to answer them through science. Given the track record of science though, you'd have to agree that it's probably just a matter of time.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

As far as I know, this is the one topic on which Buddhism is silent.

I have discussed this with my son and his reply was that Buddhism is not that much concerned with Origins, as with the state of humanity Now, and what our responsibility is to alleviate suffering.

They have this teaching of the "Turning of the Wheel", and we are now in the Third Turn. But how the wheel started turning in the first place, is apparently not an issue to them.

I have to admit that according to Russell, my thoughts are still "poor", because there is no way I can wrap my mind around No Beginning, or Infinity, for that matter. I wonder if HE understood infinity??

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I'm not saying there isn't any change in species, I believe that species
do indeed "evolve" just not to the level some do.

Creationist scientists still haven't explained what mechanism it is that stops evolution dead in its tracks just before new species are formed. And they also still don't provide a thorough takedown of why it is that wherever we look, be it DNA, fossil record, geographic distribution, homology and so on, we see evidence of common descent. Saying god created common parts that he reused, doesn't explain endogenous retroviruses. Saying the flood wiped out all dinosaurs doesn't explain the neat, layered order of strata, when one of the more obvious traits of a catastrophic flood is that it whirls and throws everything around in such a way that we should find the various fossils and various strata materials in a chaotic mess. Saying that a single family survived the flood doesn't explain how the reality of in-breeding didn't apply to this particular family. Saying that all the variations of say the horse kind evolved through micro-evolution in just one or two thousand years, doesn't explain how all of a sudden evolution can run on steroids (producing different species, by the way), but still it's unlikely that comparetively slow evolution over millions and millions of years (as is the case with the cambrian) can produce new so called kinds. Saying that organisms reproduce within their kind, without providing the criteria for what constitutes a kind, doesn't say anything at all.

In short, creationist scientists have a lot of credibility to build up, and instead they focus on trying to pick holes in the most substantiated and supported theory in all of science. And they do this through rhetoric, goal shifting and flat out lies, while absolutely demanding that scientists speak on subjects that are as of yet unkown to us - taking the lack of answer as evidence that they're right, which is absurdity taken to a mind-blowing degree.

They're hypocritical fools, is what I'm saying.

Originally posted by C Hess
...wherever we look, be it DNA, fossil record, geographic distribution, homology and so on, we see evidence of comment decent.

Do you mean "decent comment"? 😉

Originally posted by FMF
Do you mean "decent comment"? 😉

😵 fixed

Originally posted by C Hess
Not a problem for evolution to answer. I said earlier that I don't know with certainty how the first cells came to be, but how biodiversity came about through the evolutionary process. Incidently, the very first cells would for obvious reasons have been much simpler than even the simplest cells today. Evolution is all about accumulation.

You see you are really on weak ground, you do not know is the honest
answer, yet you claim vast amounts of knowledge on a subject whose
beginning you've really no clue!
How did everything get here, you don't know, except you know God had
nothing to do with it. How did life start from non-life, you don't know except
you know God had nothing to do with it.
You don't know is your only obvious answer, and the dishonesty isn't resting
with the creationist, but those that have nothing to hang their hats on.

Originally posted by C Hess
Creationist scientists still haven't explained what mechanism it is that stops evolution dead in its tracks just before new species are formed. And they also still don't provide a thorough takedown of why it is that wherever we look, be it DNA, fossil record, geographic distribution, homology and so on, we see evidence of common descent. Saying god created co ...[text shortened]... is absurdity taken to a mind-blowing degree.

They're hypocritical fools, is what I'm saying.

Why do you think a mechanism beyond this is what the darn thing was
designed to do was required? I don't think it is odd that when I type in
math issues on my calculator I get a math answer any more than I think
it is odd that when I select pictures for my background a picture shows up.

God shared what those that needed to know, needed to know. You are the
one reaching beyond your ability to grasp and coming up with answers that
you've no way to prove right or wrong.

Originally posted by C Hess
Your replies always going back to abiogenesis questions when discussing evolution shows little respect, to be perfectly honest. If you want to start with a first cell and learn what science knows today about how multi-cellular organisms first formed, how organs developed and how we know what organs formed first and approximately when, what the evidence is tha ...[text shortened]... he track record of science though, you'd have to agree that it's probably just a matter of time.

My replies show little respect because I'm giving you my views? How is that
being disrespectful? You just pissed because I don't agree with you so you
are being rude?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You see you are really on weak ground, you do not know is the honest
answer, yet you claim vast amounts of knowledge on a subject whose
beginning you've really no clue!
How did everything get here, you don't know, except you know God had
nothing to do with it. How did life start from non-life, you don't know except
you know God had nothing to do with i ...[text shortened]... shonesty isn't resting
with the creationist, but those that have nothing to hang their hats on.

Mr Hess has stated - 'he doesn't know with any certainty' - twice in fact. What more do you want?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't know is your only obvious answer, and the dishonesty isn't resting
with the creationist, but those that have nothing to hang their hats on.

Who made God? You theists don't know, so you have nothing to hang your hats on. If you don't know how it all started then you can't know anything!

Sorry, but I don't buy that ridiculous argument. One does not need to know every little detail about how the universe began before we can know something concrete about something in the here and now.

Originally posted by KellyJay,
You see you are really on weak ground, you do not know is the honest
answer, yet you claim vast amounts of knowledge on a subject whose
beginning you've really no clue!
How did everything get here, you don't know, except you know God had
nothing to do with it. How did life start from non-life, you don't know except
you know God had nothing to do with ...[text shortened]... shonesty isn't resting
with the creationist, but those that have nothing to hang their hats on.

Let me present you with an analogous conversation:

Me: I know that gravity is in effect thanks to all the overwhelming evidence for it.
You: But how did it start? Can you explain that? Because if you can't, then gravity is only real in your imagination.
Me: I can't say with certainty how gravitation began or even exactly how it works, but I'm certain from the evidence that gravity is a fact, and we're discovering more and more about how it works all the time.
You: You see you're really on weak ground, you do not know is the honest answer...

Now, before you shout straw man, consider that we have a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution than we do about gravity. The theory of evolution is astonishingly enough more solid than the theory of gravity. That's why you look foolish everytime you try to discredit evolution by pointing out that we don't know how it began.

See?