Prove evolution. Earn 250 large!
All you have to do is empirically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only way the worrld could have been created. Check it out here.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
The only part of that that is evolution is number five. Three and four are associated, but poorly worded - Early life forms did not learn to reproduce. Early self-replicating molecules eventually became complicated enough to be called life.
Amusingly, most of his fine print is lists of various types of evidence that he has decided not to accept.
Feh,
I will give one million dollars to someone who can empirically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god is NOT an omnipotent galaxy sized Nike sneaker that controls the universe using some role-playing game boxed set and a set of polyhedral dice.**
**I choose to ignore Occam's razor as a form of evidence because its my million dollars and I said so, Nyah.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.
Creationist Kent Hovind has widely publicized his "standing offer" to pay $250,000 for scientific evidence of evolution. He argues that the "failure" of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the "hypothesis" of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature.
I see. So empirical evidence is required to prove Mr. Hovind wrong yet the lack of it is sufficient to prove Mr. Hovind right? Does he not realize that one need only switch the position of the arguments to put him in the exact position he is putting those who advance the theory of evolution?
What a dumbass.
All you have to do is empirically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only way the worrld could have been created.
That's the problem with science -- you can't prove anything, you can only disprove things and generate a theory. It is not possible to prove evolution is the only way things happened. Maybe Dr. Hovind is better off spending his $250,000 doing it the right way by finding something about the theory that is not correct, thereby challenging it as a whole.
I think "Creation Science Evangelism" has an extra word in it.
I see. So empirical evidence is required to prove Mr. Hovind wrong yet the lack of it is sufficient to prove Mr. Hovind right? Does he not realize that one need only switch the position of the arguments to put him in the exact position he is putting those who advance the theory of evolution?
Yes, but we teach evolution in our schools and shun creationism because it's just a 'theory'
Yes, but we teach evolution in our schools and shun creationism because it's just a 'theory'
We also teach the 'theory' of gravity in our schools and it has yet to be proven.
I'm okay with teaching creationism in our schools, as long as you also teach the Norse theory that Muspell was the first world to exist before this one and Surt guarded that world until he vanquished all other gods before him.
No creationism is not a theory but a belief.
A theory must have some logic in it.
Saying that God came down from the heavens and made the world because you think so isn't a theory. It's a belief.
Moreover, ther are plenty of fossils that support eveolution theory but not a single peice of evidence that supports creationsim.
The reason people teach evolution in school and not creationsm is because people go to school to learn science not religious propaganda..
No creationism is not a theory but a belief.
Creationism could be a theory if it had a foundation, evidence, and a series of contructs to base the idea on. The problem is that all evidence for creationism usually goes like this: "the eyeball is so complicated, it could not possibly have evolved, therefore it must have been created by a higher power".
That's an arguement against evolution, which is fine, but those arguments against one theory are not how you create another.
For reference, some of this was also discussed
here.
Yes, but we teach evolution in our schools and shun creationism because it's just a 'theory'
Minor correction: the
theory of evolution is taght in schools as are many other theories for which the evidence is substantial but circumstantial.
Creationism has no business being taught in schools as it has no basis in science. Schools don't teach matters of faith and don't even think about taking the position that the theory of evolution is a matter of faith. While it might turn out to be wrong, such a development would fly squarely in the face of a mountain of supporting evidence. Just because the evidence falls short of incontrovertible is no reason to put the idea on the same level as an idea advanced by one of the writers of the Bible however devinely inspired he may have been.
And I will never understand why so many have a hard time understanding why God, in his wisdom, "dumb-downed" the Bible to make its message accessable to sheep herders by using metaphors and analogies and other symbolic language.
And I'm a pretty devout Christian, btw (a fact I mention solely for its bearing on this discussion). Let's recall the torture of Galileo for having the audacity to suggest that the sun did not, in fact, revolve around the earth.
For reference, some of this was also discussed here.
Five pages of posts? No way I'm reading all of that. Yuck!
You can't even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that creation happened. No one can prove evolution, either. He says that creation isn't a theory because it's a belief. Well, evolution is believed by people, isn't it? The only way you can prove anything is to experience it and no one alive has. This guy obviously had a god-complex.
By the way, I do believe in creation, but how long was God's day? In the Bible, a thousand years happens in an instant for God. Creation was made in 6 days. How long did that take for us mere mortals here on earth?
He says that creation isn't a theory because it's a belief. Well, evolution is believed by people, isn't it?
Not quite -- both evolution and creationism may be believed, but only one is a theory.
The only way you can prove anything is to experience it and no one alive has.
It is not the purpose of a theory to prove something, as no theory can be proven. Theories are simply there to provide a "working explanation" of what we notice in various phenomena and how they interact. Creationism doesn't do that.
In the Bible, a thousand years happens in an instant for God.
I rather like the theistic evolutionary ideas -- that the bible explains something in simplier terms/in terms relative to god. Its always been a bit friendlier to both sides of the issue.
This whole gravity thing is bullshit. When are people going to realize it's just a "theory"??
Teach evolution in Science classes, along with other competing theories based upon the scientific method (hypothesis, experimentation and theorization).
Teach creationism in Mythology classes, along with other competing belief systems based upon faith and religion.
No one can prove either. No one can DISPROVE either.
Originally posted by juju
This whole gravity thing is bullshit. When are people going to realize it's just a "theory"??
Gravity is a fact. Why and how it works is a theory. :p
Originally posted by juju
This whole gravity thing is bullshit. When are people going to realize it's just a "theory"??
Gravity isn't a theory its a law. A self-enforcing law. You break it and it breaks you back. :)
The demonstratable effects of gravity are facts, because they can be proven. There is a theory that explains these effects, which has yet to be disproven. That's what I was referring to.
* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Hey! I've seen that list before! I think that it was in a
Jack Chick Tract!
Good catch. But it's possible both of them got it from a third source.
There were enough problems in the tract to choke a horse, but here are a few in Chick's list:
1) Using the term "evolution" in steps 1-4 is perhaps linguistically accurate, but it is a deliberate attempt to imply that the theories stand or fall together.
2) Steps 2 and 3 are out of order. Higher elements don't "evolve", they are produced by fusion in the heart of stars.
3) He may have just run out of board space, but step 4 is oversimplified. Rocks are a subset of the elements and complex chemicals which predate life.
It's amusing that Chick has the scientist produce the "6 concepts" list, when it is part of the creationist playbook.
I don't know. There's the Bible and then there's Darwin. The Bible predates Darwin by thousands of years, so logically, the Bible would be the choice. But, Darwin is scientific and we, as scientific, reasoning species, want everything explained. Darwin explains evolution. But it's hard to grasp that we evolved from pond scum. I like to believe that we came from the Garden. It's a much more romantic and cleaner idea. Choices, choices!
Many don't take the Bible word for word, though. I see it as a book of faith, not a history book.
Originally posted by FelinesAreFine
The Bible predates Darwin by thousands of years, so logically, the Bible would be the choice.
Why is something more believable because it is older?
Originally posted by FelinesAreFine
I don't know. There's the Bible and then there's Darwin. The Bible predates Darwin by thousands of years, so logically, the Bible would be the choice.
That's not logic. That's nostalgia. A few hundred years ago, people thought rats spontaneously generated in garbage. We've learned a few things in the meantime.
Creationists always seem to be the sort that accept word for word literal truth in the Bible. That is a nasty combination.
My favorite idea of theirs is Adam and Eve romping around the Garden with all the animals - including dinosaurs- which had to have gone extinct because they died in the Great Flood.
It drives me nuts that creationists pick and choose the science facts and theories they decide to accept or reject.
One creationist that takes this 'believe only the science in the Bible' to its logical conclusion is at :
http://www.fixedearth.com/
He argues that we should go back to geocentrism. Now that's at least consistent in rejecting all modern science!
Slartibartfast -- awesome link. This guy may be on to something.
WHAT IF - the Bible teaches a stationary earth (just like everyone agreed it did until Copernican and finally Newtonian "mathematics" scared the churches into thinking that "science" had proof of heliocentricity)?
Oh, yeah, I bet that is exactly how it happened. Copernicus scared the church into thinking the sun was the center of the solar system and Galileo disavowed his beliefs just for the hell of it.
Then, again, there is still nothing better than
4 simultaneous 24 hour days.
You are educated stupid.Originally posted by Kitsune
4 simultaneous 24 hour days.
File that one under 'schizo', then bury the file cabinet under several tons of landfill.
God created only a single 24 hour day
rotation of Earth, while I have created
4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a
single rotation of Earth - therefore, I
am wiser than the word god, and all
word worshipers.MAKE HIM STOP!!!!! GOOD GOD SOMEBODY MAKE HIM STOP WRITING!!!
"My name is Gene Ray. I represent a
Power that transcends power of God.
That Supreme Power is in Nature's
Harmonic Simultaneous Perpetual
4X4 =16 Corner Rotating Principle
4-Day Time Cube - Ineffable Truth"
"You only know what you know
from your mental brainwashing
and word indoctrination since
your birth. It is imperative that
that you know what you don't
know, but what you know, will
not allow you to know what you
don't know. The God words you
know, will not allow you to know
TIME CUBE's Highest Life Order."
Originally posted by Kitsune
Slartibartfast -- awesome link. This guy may be on to something.
WHAT IF - the Bible teaches a stationary earth (just like everyone agreed it did until Copernican and finally Newtonian "mathematics" scared the churches into thinking that "science" had proof of heliocentricity)?
Oh, yeah, I bet that is exactly how it happened. Copernicus scared the church into thinking the sun was the center of the solar system and Galileo disavowed his beliefs just for the hell of it.
Copernicus, conveniently, presented heliocentrism as a hypothetical logic fantasy, and published his ideas just before he died (so that he wouldn't have to deal with the backlash.
The Bible does teach a stationary Earth, because the Bible was based on a physical model of the Universe in which the Earth was stationary. The heliocentric model
invalidated their understanding of the Universe -- and the Church suppressed it because they feared that it might invalidate the Bible as well.
The Biblical Universe also neatly explained that feeling of wonder as you gaze upon a cloudless starry night. According to the Bible's model of the Universe, the Universe could be neatly represented as a series of concentric spheres*, with each planet on it's own orbit, and where the outermost concentric sphere is a sort of celestial curtain dividing Heaven from our Universe. The Stars were little pinpricks in the curtain through which the Light of Heaven shone.
The Star of Bethlehem was the opening in Heaven through which Jesus came to Earth.
They knew of gravity, which pulled everything toward the center of the Universe. Until Newton, one problem that people had with the heliocentric model was: 'if the Earth is rotating and spinning around the Sun at great velocities, why haven't we all been flung off?'.
*Before they recognized the Earth as round, it could have just been a series of bars.
[Edit: Jesus addendumThe Bible does teach a stationary Earth, because the Bible was based on a physical model of the Universe in which the Earth was stationary.
Actually, where does the bible state that the Earth is stationary? I can't remember where in the text that it does.
Interesting -- in doing some mild research (aka - "Google") I've read a bit that says the church's original teachings of a stationary Earth were based on Claudius Ptolemy's ideas.
Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600.
More,
here.
Giordano Bruno was awesome!
The Bible was based upon Ptolemy's ideas of a stationary Earth, because during that period of time they were widely accepted and the Bible was a product of it's times. People continued to use the 'concentric shells' model of the Universe (although during the Renaissance some heretics modified it to allow for infinite depth stars).
Part of the problem was that was that if the Universe was stars from the boundaries of the solar system on out, where did Heaven go?
This link goes into the Biblical geocentrism, and attempts to harmonize the Bible and modern science. This is really easy to do if you pass the books of faith down through the generations, but much more difficult with books and incredibly difficult as the prose becomes more precise.
I couldn't find the video, but
here's an email describing an MIT question-and-answer session with the timecube guy.
Originally posted by Torrere
The Bible does teach a stationary Earth, because the Bible was based on a physical model of the Universe in which the Earth was stationary.
At least one guy thought that the Bible teaches that the earth is
flat .
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
sadly, his website on the flat earth society -
www.flat-earth.org - is long gone.
Originally posted by Torrere
The Bible was based upon Ptolemy's ideas of a stationary Earth, because during that period of time they were widely accepted and the Bible was a product of it's times.
In several other threads proponents of the bible's authenticity claim it is the word of God. It was merely written down and unsullied by human thinking/opinion. That being true, how would God not know how the universe actually works?:rolleyes:
God knows exactly how the Universe works. He built it. He told us how it works in the Bible. This whole heliocentrism myth is the work of pagan sun-worshippers and their bankers.
Originally posted by Torrere
God knows exactly how the Universe works. He built it. He told us how it works in the Bible. This whole heliocentrism myth is the work of pagan sun-worshippers and their bankers.
and the government. don't forget the government.
[SIZE=1]damn Republicrats and Democretins[/SIZE]
The History Channel had a show on last night about the Bible, and who wrote it, and such forth (oh, and one about Sex in the Bible too ... )
My VCR watched it for me, as it was on during the StuporBowl. I'll be trying to stay awake tonight to see it, most likely.
The History Channel had a show on last night about the Bible, and who wrote it, and such forth (oh, and one about Sex in the Bible too ... )
I didn't get to watch it (you'll have to tell me what was interesting when you get to view your recording!) but I thought their ad for the show was interesting: "The bible -- who wrote it, and is it a manual for sex?"
Originally posted by Slartibartfast
and the government. don't forget the government.
The government is their tool to keep us from realizing the Truth of Gawd.
Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
-- Isaac Asimov
How about teaching this in schools:
There are these two concepts known as creationism and evolutionism.
Creationism is not backed by what is known as empirical data. Creationism is based on beliefs passed down through generations. These beliefs, in general, tend to keep order in the lives of many millions of people around the world and may likely contribute greatly to the prevention of mass chaos. The study of how these beliefs affect the behaviors of the world populace is interesting and forms a large body of work which you may someday choose to study.
Evolutionism contains many theories that have been shown to have validity in the minds of millions of people around the world. Evolutionists have what is called empirical data to show the validity of various theories. Evolutionists are, in general, comfortable with their data and the explanations it provides them. In this comfort, they, too, may have the ability to avoid chaotic behaviors. Evolutionism possesses many large bodies of work known as the sciences any one of which you may someday choose to study.
After the above has created numerous discussions in class, put this quote up on the board and ask for explanations of its meaning (this will definitely make the room quiet for a while):
“The fact that astronomies change while the stars abide is a true analogy of every realm of human life and thought, religion not least of all. No existent theology can be a final formulation of a spiritual truth.” ~ Harry Emerson Fosdick, clergyman and author.
If this truly is the land of free will that contributes to the common good, shouldn’t everyone be given choices as long as they do no harm to the common good?
The easiest way to refute Creationism, IMO...Genesis, 4:
Adam and Eve had Cain.
Cain and his wife had Enoch.
Where the fuck did Cain's wife come from?
Originally posted by sycamore
Where the fuck did Cain's wife come from?
People have been pestering Creationists with that question a long time.
Their usual answer is that Eve had many sons and daughters, and Cane married a sister. When asked the obvious followup question of why didn't the Bible mention this fact, their answer is that the Bible only mentions Cane as being firstborn as that was significant, but other siblings didn't merit comment.
This sibling marrage causes a very obvious comment - which can be paraphrased as 'dammit, only rednecks marry siblings, and look at what it does to their brats!'
But the argument about incest being morally wrong and having a tendency to cause babies with flippers that talk and act like presidential politicians gets the response that incest only became forbidden later in time, and that the human race was 'genetically purer' at the time of creation - which is also evident as people lived hundreds of years.
Originally posted by peasantfarmer
How about teaching this in schools:
There are these two concepts known as creationism and evolutionism.
There are a hell of a lot more than two, if you're going to bring mythology into it.
Creationism is not backed by what is known as empirical data. Creationism is based on beliefs passed down through generations. These beliefs, in general, tend to keep order in the lives of many millions of people around the world and may likely contribute greatly to the prevention of mass chaos. The study of how these beliefs affect the behaviors of the world populace is interesting and forms a large body of work which you may someday choose to study.
This is something you want in a science class? It's not like it's hard to find a Sunday school.
Hey, can we have evolution taught in Sunday School? What about equal time?
Happy Monkey wrote: There are a hell of a lot more than two, if you're going to bring mythology into it.
I apologize for my lack of clarity in my writing. I was suggesting a dialogue in which neither creationism nor evolutionism was determined by schools to be right or wrong. I didn't intend to suggest that mythology belongs or does not belong to any concept.
Happy Monkey wrote: This is something you want in a science class? It's not like it's hard to find a Sunday school.
Again, I apologize for my lack of clarity as I certainly did not intend to suggest that creationism be taught in a science class.