What has creationism done for humanity?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 11:31 PM by juniperberry

reply to post by Demandred

Hmm... but if you look at children, they are quite capable of sharing, of playing with those who are different from them etc.

I believe that morals etc are already available but have been manipulated in society to follow particular directions.

I mean honestly, there was a time when it was moral to kill witches.

Creationism doesn't imply or create absolute goodness in people.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 11:41 PM by Demandred

reply to post by juniperberry

true enough but there are many kids especially these days who arnt capable of playing well with others or sharing

what religeon did or was supposed to do in alot of ways was to set an example of how people were supposed to treat each other, creationism is more or less an extention of that as its a way for people back when the bible was written to explain how we came about, who god was and why we should behave in the manner prescribed.

Ill be the first to admit there have been some absolutley horrendous things done in the name of religeon when its been hi-jacked for somone elses personal gain as in the salom witch trials but i believe there has been far more good done. We only really ever hear about the bad

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 11:47 PM by juniperberry

So really then, we can't really argue one way or the other as the outcomes are unrelated..

Creationism doesn't explain dna differences and mutations, and evolution doesn't demonstrate morally correct behaviour.

Why can't we have both? 'Someone' created the Universe but then let it go and evolve into what it will..

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 12:19 AM by Demandred

reply to post by juniperberry

that is more or less what i believe, if you read one of my previous posts

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 12:25 AM by juniperberry

reply to post by Demandred

I had to go back and reread your posts. I missed it probably while I was adding my two bits.

So.. now that we're on the same page, how to convince everyone else?

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 12:36 AM by andre18

I might just interject here…..
Let’s just say for arguments sake the discovery of evolution and Abiogenesis hasn’t done anything for humanity whatsoever. Ok great, fantastic……so now creationists, it’s your chance to smack atheists down hard with what creationism has done for humanity.

As the op asked it’s up to you to respond….can you think of one single thing creationism has done?

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 12:59 AM by Demandred

well i think there is ample evidence to suggest that there has been a evolutionary pattern, those that cant adapt die out but where the block in evolution is, "the begining" and "sentience".

looking at creationist there appears at least to me to be an underlying opinion by creationists that everything was created by god at the same time but for this to be acceptable there needs to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a god and to prove that there needs to be a consistancy in the understanding of what god really is or whom, creationism explains the begining but because of the lack of understanding of those who wrote the bible creationism is a tough pill to swallow because i dont think you can take too much of whats written in the OT at face value it seems to me to be more symbolic.

ID to me is one of the most intreiging theorys because it can encompass both creationism and evolution there was an intelligence that started life here on this planet and that life did what all life does procreates and adapts, but this being would needed to have cultivated life or at the least returned after a period of time to implant sentience with in us, i dont think sentience is a natural process of evolution or we would see a greater example of this sentience on this planet and i believe that is the most fundmental point when discussing evolution/creation etc that there is no other sentience on this planet with the vast array of other speices and if sentience was a natural evolutionary process then statistically i would expect to see this evolutionary step in a few other life forms.

so to convince others i guess you would need to reinforce the points about the begining of life and the sentience of humans to try to convince the evolutionists.

you would need to reinforce the evidence of how other speices have adapted over time to convince the creationists

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Demandred]

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 01:07 AM by Demandred

Originally posted by andre18
I might just interject here…..
Let’s just say for arguments sake the discovery of evolution and Abiogenesis hasn’t done anything for humanity whatsoever. Ok great, fantastic……so now creationists, it’s your chance to smack atheists down hard with what creationism has done for humanity.

As the op asked it’s up to you to respond….can you think of one single thing creationism has done?

other than the points i outlined on the fist page in response to this its not something you can attribute acheivments to any more than you could to evolution as the 2 theories are nothing more than that theories and neither have any external scientific factors that could influence achievemnts by mankind.

the achievements made by man kind were created because of a unsaid/unwritten mutual consent to co-operate as a society/community/tribe in most cases that im aware of this sence of partnership was originally fostered by the different communities sence of spirituality.

the opening post was ambiguous at best and has still failed to outline evolutions achievments and said opinion was retracted on a later post.

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 01:24 AM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by Demandred

Oh for crying out loud.

Look, I'm going to be harsh here, but only because I've had to explain this so damn many times to so many people who are off picking boogers with their toes while their Deity of Choice was handing out brain stems.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. This does not mean "hunch" and it does not mean "speculation." It is the second-highest level of credibility a scientific concept has, right below a law. The only thing preventing the theory of evolution from being considered a law is that due to the realities of the universe, we have no 100% certainty about any of the physical sciences. The only place where we actually have hard, set laws of science is in mathematics.

If you want to argue that evolution is "just a theory" then you really need to start explaining how gravity is just invisible god-glue keeping us stuck to various surfaces and sundry, and how Einstein's relativity is scientific trash because it's "just a theory" too.

If you're going to argue for or against something - evolution, guacamole, disco dancing, whatever - then please, please, please at least try to familiarize yourself with basic freaking concepts of what you're talking about. Right now you're basically telling me that you make guac out of strawberries and bacon, and that i'm a fool for thinking one uses avacadoes.

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 01:33 AM by Clearskies

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Angry much?

Evolution is STILL a theory.

You can replicate gravity, the theory of relativity..........but NOT species-to-species leaps.

BTW, I like guacamole!

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 01:39 AM by juniperberry

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Demandred

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. This does not mean "hunch" and it does not mean "speculation." It is the second-highest level of credibility a scientific concept has, right below a law. The only thing preventing the theory of evolution from being considered a law is that due to the realities of the universe, we have no 100% certainty about any of the physical sciences. The only place where we actually have hard, set laws of science is in mathematics.

I'm sorry but I'm going to interject here myself. What is the definition of theory? From Merriam Webster: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

So the 'theory' of evolution is a theory because it takes a whole lot of small observances and comes up with a working model that explains what is happening.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Demandred

If you want to argue that evolution is "just a theory" then you really need to start explaining how gravity is just invisible god-glue keeping us stuck to various surfaces and sundry, and how Einstein's relativity is scientific trash because it's "just a theory" too.

First of all we have a theory of gravity. We see the apple fall. But have you ever seen GRAVITY? What does it look like? What does it smell like? What creates Gravity? Heck we don't know. But we have a theory that there is this force called Gravity that makes things fall. But until we can measure SOMETHING we call Gravity, it remains a theory.

Einstein's relativity theory has already been questioned and new theories have been brought forth to enhance it. See String Theory. But Einsteins relativity could not be called FACT as there wasn't enough information to call it a FACT, and this theory didn't explain certain other phenomena that were identified through String theory.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Demandred

If you're going to argue for or against something - evolution, guacamole, disco dancing, whatever - then please, please, please at least try to familiarize yourself with basic freaking concepts of what you're talking about. Right now you're basically telling me that you make guac out of strawberries and bacon, and that i'm a fool for thinking one uses avacadoes.

Pot, meet Kettle.

[edit on 2008/10/8 by juniperberry]

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 01:42 AM by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Angry much?

Evolution is STILL a theory.

You can replicate gravity, the theory of relativity..........but NOT species-to-species leaps.

BTW, I like guacamole!

Do I need to explain what a scientific theory is, one post after I explained what a scientific theory is? Please, tell me I don't, and you're just being sarcastic, yanking my chain here.

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 01:52 AM by andre18

reply to post by Demandred

Well hang on there…
As scientific theories they do contribute “scientific factors that could (and do) influence achievements by mankind.” For example with the knowledge of evolution we are able to comprehend a better understanding of how biology works and where we came from as a species. Evolution has helped mankind achieve a greater learned understanding of ourselves, without this knowledge we wouldn’t have the medicines we have today.

evolution as the 2 theories are nothing more than that theories

When I read this kind of sentence again and again from creationists I have a hard time believing you really know what you’re talking about – that you’re educated enough to make an informed opinion about evolution or on any other scientific field.

I’m sure you know after it has been explained time after time that a scientific theory is completely different to a creationist theory. Since you must know the difference, why do you keep on insisting a scientific theory is the same as a creationist theory?

www.fsteiger.com...

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by andre18]

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 01:52 AM by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by juniperberry

I'm sorry but I'm going to interject here myself. What is the definition of theory? From Merriam Webster: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

So the 'theory' of evolution is a theory because it takes a whole lot of small observances and comes up with a working model that explains what is happening.

Scientific theory.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

You see, in common jargon, "theory," "hypothesis," and "guess" all mean the same thing. In technical jargon however, they mean three very different things. This is of course a big conspiracy by evil scientists to confuse the trailer park types that can't wrap their heads around the idea that a word might have different meanings when used in different contexts.

First of all we have a theory of gravity. We see the apple fall. But have you ever seen GRAVITY? What does it look like? What does it smell like? What creates Gravity? Heck we don't know. But we have a theory that there is this force called Gravity that makes things fall. But until we can measure SOMETHING we call Gravity, it remains a theory.

Einstein's relativity theory has already been questioned and new theories have been brought forth to enhance it. See String Theory. But Einsteins relativity could not be called FACT as there wasn't enough information to call it a FACT, and this theory didn't explain certain other phenomena that were identified through String theory.

You're confusing "fact" with "law". Hypotheses, theories, and laws all are built of facts. All of them are explanations of the facts. The Theory of evolution has a strong backing of facts.

Now if you want to take all those facts and construct a better theory with them, by all means. Creationism and its bastard offspring ID have been utterly incompatible with any facts whatsoever, but maybe you can do better.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Speaking to yourself are you?

[edit on 8-10-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 04:54 AM by dave420

reply to post by Demandred

That has nothing to do with creationism or religion. The exact same benefits can be found elsewhere. Correlation does not mean causation.

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 09:35 PM by SlyCM

Knowledge of evolution helps explain and predict biology. That's what it "does". Take bacteria, for example. They evolve on a regular basis, and being able to predict how they might evolve (ie, drug resistance) helps humanity. The same could be said for modern selective breeding of animals.

Creation could be called an "explanation" but it's really just an "I dunno". It's gap theology. And it opens up more questions than it solves.

What I am asking here is: what has creationism (not the hypothesis itself, but the "ism") done for humanity?

The reason I'm putting this out here is not to "prove" evolution. Rather, it is to contrast. One could argue creationism as "anti science", and in that case it is obvious that it is quite the opposite of helpful to humanity. Yet creationists act as though a wide range of science is "evil" (unless they think it supports their case).

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 10:03 PM by theindependentjournal

This OP is not bright enough for this site, we try to DENY IGNORANCE not perpetrate it and spread it. The OP's statement that evolution has never killed anyone has got to be the single most dumbest thing I have ever seen on ATS and I LMAO at the UFO listings. Read a book, buy a clue, I don;t know what to say to someone that spouts such uninformed dribble.

Hitler made a list of those to be terminated and why the list is published and also held in a northeastern colleges library, which maintains one o the worlds largest library's on Hitler. And that is just one example of one man, read Hitlers forward in his books and see that he thanks Darwin in them.

Darwin said in his own book that his theory was crap and the eye alone refuted it. There is NO molecular Biologist nor any scientist in the world with evidence of Evolution. There is none, notta, zip that is why it is still the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of, like the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics, which also by the way disprove evolution in themselves. There is over 100 million dollars available for the first scientist that can prove scientifically evolution, it has NOT been collected ever by any source.

Now what has creationism done for humanity, that one is easy....

EVERYTHING YOU SEE!

reply posted on 8-10-2008 @ 10:23 PM by juniperberry

reply to post by theindependentjournal

Which is why evolution remains a THEORY and not a FACT. No one disputes this. But just because it can't explain SOME things, doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water..

It DOES explain quite a LOT of things.. so it's still a good THEORY that still needs to be worked on.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 12:00 AM by SamuraiDrifter

Originally posted by Demandred
ok then if evolution is supposed to explain the diversity of life and not its origins then why do people put it up against creationism which is to explain the origin of life not diversity?

That's a good question, isn't it? Scientists are not the ones doing it. Creationists like you, who do not understand evolution, misinterpret its claims and pit it against intelligent design.

now you state that evolution gave us nothing and its just an explination about how biodiversity came about from single cell life, yet you refuse to elaborate on how this single cell life came about, from my point of view i can accept that bio diversity has played a role with plants and animals evolving, how ever evolution cant answer the 1 big question how did life start and thats the question all evolutionists evade like the plague, because its something their theory cant explain. which is why it always comes back to beinging a theory.

I'm not "evading" it, or "avoiding it like the plague." I simply don't know much about abiogenesis, besides that it HAS been demonstrated scientifically that organic material can arise from inorganic matter- all without the use of supernatural agents.

and secondly in your OP you state that evolution has given us so many things and now your saying it hasnt given us anything

I never said any such thing.

i dont suppose you want to clarify this?

Evolutionary theory merely explains the process by which biodiversity (that is, the vast array of species we now observe on this planet) arose from a common ancestor, by means of natural selection. It makes no comment on how that common ancestor came into being.

reply posted on 9-10-2008 @ 12:13 AM by Demandred

reply to post by andre18

i like your post so ill start with you

Well hang on there…
As scientific theories they do contribute “scientific factors that could (and do) influence achievements by mankind.” For example with the knowledge of evolution we are able to comprehend a better understanding of how biology works and where we came from as a species. Evolution has helped mankind achieve a greater learned understanding of ourselves, without this knowledge we wouldn’t have the medicines we have today.

i thought we gained understanding of how biology works by cutting up cadavers and probably some unsavory experiments where people wernt quite cadavers, having knowledge of where we came from doesnt really help us to know how our bodies work and im not sure how you can attribute medicines to evolution.

When I read this kind of sentence again and again from creationists I have a hard time believing you really know what you’re talking about – that you’re educated enough to make an informed opinion about evolution or on any other scientific field.

I’m sure you know after it has been explained time after time that a scientific theory is completely different to a creationist theory. Since you must know the difference, why do you keep on insisting a scientific theory is the same as a creationist theory?

because a rose by any other name still smells as sweet

a theory is a theory its not a fact they both have equal value untill such time as one is proven or disproven.

take Newtons laws as an example were created by much the same method as the theory of evolution came about, a single person observerd the behaviour of the subject he was studying analized the information as he understood it and made those laws based on the limited information avaliable to him about physics if newton had access to another planet or even space i suspect newtons laws would be alot different.

currently we (mankind) only have a limited amount of information about our past by using that "Limited" information we have created a "Theory" that sorta kinda explains a few things but not everything e.g the original life form being created or sentience. now we have a group of people running around hailing evolution as the answer to all our questions when in fact they really havent answered anything.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^