BF2S Forums Creationism Vs Science: Video

Infact, someone has uploaded the whole of the first episode in segments here (they should be in order!!!)

Note:  You may want to pause it when it first starts playing to allow the full file to load.  I have a 6 meg connection and it freezes quite a bit if i try to play the video without waiting.  5 to 10 mins should do...

http://www.youtube.com/?v=CPaD6D54L4o

http://www.youtube.com/?v=TUy-Uq3WuhA

http://www.youtube.com/?v=8GgD3lgspQE

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2006-06-04 08:28:45)

if they want to teach "creationism" in schools, then bye bye to reason and free though.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … f+all+Evil

herrr_smity wrote:

if they want to teach "creationism" in schools, then bye bye to reason and free thought.

...er...if they want to teach JUST evolution then bye bye to reason and free thought ...I think you mean. Remember. No one can say definitivlely what happened or when... it takes a fair degree of "faith" to believe anything that isn't known for sure.

Damn... someone used my favorite argument against "it's just a theory", gravity is a fact just how we explain it is a theory... Evolution is a FACT!!! just how we explain it is a theory. Before any creationist claims we don't know how life was first formed well evolution DOES NOT COVER THIS. How life formed from inorganic and organic matter is a completely different study (Abiogenesis).

For the young earth creationists... how come we can see light from BILLIONS of years ago if the entire universe is only 6000 - 10000 years old? (we know this through simple geometry not radio-dating)

In science there is only two remaining strong holds of a "god", how the universe is first formed and how the first living thing came into existence... if you want any chance limit yourselves to these areas of debate.

Also if there is a Christian god why would he (or she or it) make a universe so vast that his primary creation could never see it all?

Last edited by Fred[OZ75] (2006-06-04 21:51:26)

ComradeWho wrote:

I'll try to paraphrase a philosopher named sam harris here: in every area of human life we think that people are insane if they indulge in actions without reasoning. we hold them accountable. if somebody were to tell you that "hitler lives in my ear but don't tell him because he might forget it.. and then i'd have to fly" you would probably think they are disturbed. if you asked them why they think that and they said "i don't have reasons.. i just believe.. i have faith.." you'd think they were crazy. but somehow when we talk about this lack of reasoning in religion it becomes something noble and good.. to "believe" in a magical man in the sky with super power who is watching everything you did and who created the earth in a few days with his magic powers - especially if you have no real reason for believing this is really insane - but when you call it a religious belief and say you have "faith" somehow it becomes different? hmmm.. seems pretty crazy to me.

Good analogy.  Dawkins uses an equally good example in the documentary.  He is challenging those who say you can't disprove that God exists and so believing in him isn't that crazy.  He says, we can't disprove a million things, but that doesn't mean you believe they exist.  If I were to tell you that there was a flying teacup orbiting the sun, you wouldn't be able to disprove it because our telescopes aren't that good but would you believe me just because you couldn't prove I'm wrong?  Now, if we imagine that the story of this celestial teacup gets passed down through the generations, after a while the person who says it doesn't exist is seen as the mad one. 

..and there you have it, Religion in a nutshell......

Spark wrote:

ROFL, I want to see Jamdude's reaction when he sees we have our own videos.

Has anyone read 'The Blind Watchmaker'? I want to see what it says on the formation of life - especially on the 'evolution' of proteins.

Who's Jamdude?  That is another Richard dawkins book is it not?  I've not read it but are you interested because you're religious or scientific?

ComradeWho wrote:

science is a realm of human activity defined by a set of rules, some of them being scientific method. to be taught a theory in a science class it must be backed up by scientific processes or it is not a science theory. it's really simple. it's just logic.

Actually, a theory is a belief.  A scientist will form a theory.  They will form a theory that they beleive is correct based on certain evidences, phenomenon, witnessed events, etc. and then set about to prove or disprove that theory by using the rules set forth by the Scientific Method.  Until then the theory is technically not accepted as correct or incorrect.  It is simply a theory, or belief, that is put forth by a scientist or group of scientists.  If it is proved incorrect, than that theory will no longer be valid.  If it is proved correct, then it becomes a scientific law. However, some scientific laws have been rendered invalid at a later time through further study using the Scientific Method. 

I have a theory that I am actually a multi-millionaire.  I would desparately like to prove that theory as valid. However, by using the Scientific Method, I can quite quickly and conclusively prove that I am not a multi-millionare, but instead I am an average person who has debt.

SOS

todays science is tomorrows antiquity. beware the miasma !

Science is only against young-earth creationists. The guy in that video looked kinda crazy. Richard Dawkins should have talked to Jonathan Wells about evolution and creation, not a pastor.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-06-05 08:06:53)

As Dawkins says in the video, it's the creationists that call evolution a theory, anyone involved in the field calls it fact.......

all creationists can just stfu ffs

ComradeWho wrote:

calling hypothesis belief is a bit of a stretch, especially when using it in a debate about how religious beliefs based on faith (or beliefs defined by a lack of evidence) are combatting scientific theory, and where the point of one side of the argument is that religious belief should be taught in school in science along side scientific theory, because they're "all beliefs." The underlying argument in your post is one that supports this position. I think that I've explained why that is absurd sufficiently.

I am trying keep the quotes short, otherwise soon they will turn into multiple pages *LOL*.

First I would like to point out that just because you gave one version of the definitions of words and then made a well written explanation does not mean that you have magically explained your point of view so that all will see the "light".  Never make that assumption in a debate of this nature. You will hardly ever win someone's belief into your side of the argument, and you will more often alienate people to your belief. 

I am engaging in this debate primarily because it is fun.  I enjoy having intelligent conversations with people in general, irregardless of their view.   I am happy to argue either side of evolution vs. creation.  In this forum it appears there are resoundingly more evolutionists then creationists, so I am leaning more towards argueing against evolution.  Now with that in mind....

Theory and a Hypothesis are actually synonems.  The primary difference is that a Theory has a little more evidence than a Hypothesis, but a Theory is still an unproven set of thoughts.     

I am assuming that you are using Wikipedia online definitions here.  One of the problems with relying on Wikipedia is that it can be very eaily edited by anyone, which in turn makes it reflects the bias of the current auther.  Another problem is that Wikipedia usually defines through word usage in an article, rather than giving an actual definition.  Wikipedia is a good resource, and I accept its use in this debate because anyone can look at it.  I would also like to submit Webster.com as a dictionary.   Webster's Dictionary has tighter controls on definitions, and give's good, broad definitions usually without bias. 

Paraphrasing parts of the Webster definiton, Theory is explained as "a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action" or as "an unproved assumption".  Paraphrasing the webster definiton of Belief is explained as "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing".

In regards to your argument.  You have a belief in a thing, evolutional theory.  A creationist has a belief in a person, a diety.    By definition it is in no way a stretch for me to say that evolution is a belief that requires a certain amount of faith.  Belief and faith are part of the human core.  Everything that each individual does is effected by the beliefs that they uphold and the faith they put into them. 

Creationism is a viable theory that, in my opinion, should be taught along side Evolutionary theory.  There is scientific evidence available that would support either side.   Teaching pure Creationism would not be teaching a specific religuous belief.  It would simply be teaching the theory that we were created by a diety. Keep in mind that prior to the Scope's Monkey Trial,  Creationism was the sole theory that was taught in schools, at that time it was taught strictly from a Christian view.  The Scope's Monkey Trial challenged that under Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State.    Today, however, we could certainly teach Creation theory alongside Evolutionary theory without teaching a religious view.  In actuality, that has started in some school districts now thanks to some inteligent and involved parents filing the correct complaints and lawsuits. 

SOS