Top 3 problems with Evolution / Creationism

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Creationists, on the other hand, have their opinions set in stone with absolutely no evidence. That's why the responses from Raggedy, Coop and Neo are redundant and meaningless. Minds firmly closed. Heads in the sand. Learning out of the question. Cults always have those traits in common. Remember Jonestown.

I think people are doing the same on both sides. I hate to agree with the creationists however I think there is something to the whole "faith" argument. Obviously the real scientists are questioning their own theories and are always open to change.

However, some seem to accept the scientific accounts just as blindly as the creationists without a real attempt to understand. This just strengthens the creationist viewpoint.

You could argue that the history of scientific discovery gives people the trust to do this.

But if we can't honestly talk about the parts we don't understand we can't expect the creationists to do that either.

The history of scientific discovery has given us the light bulb, the car, the airplane, advanced medicine, pharmaceuticals, clean water and air, sent men to the moon and our whole way of life. How could you "accept the scientific accounts just as blindly" without evidence and experimentation? Would you fly in an airplane that wasn't tested, take a drug that had no data to back up its effectiveness and be confident that it wouldn't kill you? Science is not about trust. It's about discovery and evidence. The door is always open for improvement and new discoveries. When you turn on the ignition in your car, the thought that the combustion engine may or may not blow up doesn't cross your mind, does it?

The Creationists have bought into a cult. The cult leaders have fractured and corrupted real science to suit their agenda. Not a single article at their website (icr.org) has any proof by experimentation and evidence. It's all blabber configured to mask ignorance and deceit.

a reply to: Phantom423

I'm not claiming creationist theories have any basis in reality.

Just that comparing the science of where the universe came from, and the science that allows lightbulbs to work are completely different. We should be accepting there is a lot we don't understand yet and be happy with the answer "I don't know".

It doesn't give any support to the creationist viewpoint. It just means we are being honest, something that websites such as icr.org obviously are not doing.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Just that comparing the science of where the universe came from, and the science that allows lightbulbs to work are completely different. We should be accepting there is a lot we don't understand yet and be happy with the answer "I don't know".

I think they're really the same. Consider this: Before the light bulb was invented, candles were used. Since the light bulb was invented, it has been modified, improved, changed. From the original carbon filament bulb, we now have more efficient LED bulbs which are a two-lead semi conductor light bulbs - very different from the original invention, but essentially doing the same thing. And it's not over - there may be more improvements in the future based on new technologies. The light bulb may not be the only way to light your environment - new ways of harnessing energy and photons may make the light bulb obsolete some day.

The question of where the universe came from, what it's made of, where it's going is really the same thing. But our knowledge is always limited by the capability of the instrumentation used to detect the parameters. Instrument technology will continue to advance and so will our knowledge of the universe.

In the end it's exactly the same process - discovery, evidence, results.

To my knowledge, the Creationist community has contributed absolutely nothing to science. Why? Because they don't do science. They talk about it. They revise it to suit their agenda. And regardless how many letters they claim to have after their names, I haven't seen a single research paper on any topic in science that they so vehemently object to that substantiates their claims.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
We should be accepting there is a lot we don't understand yet and be happy with the answer "I don't know".

That is pretty much my stance on it. I am perfectly happy with not knowing everything. If we did, life would be kind of boring and jobs in scientific research would be practically non existent. I get excited by new discoveries and thinking about where that technology can take us. Basically, the way I see it, science is a great tool for learning, but we haven't yet learned it all. I'm perfectly content saying that I don't know the answer as to the origin of the universe (or existence of god) until science eventually gets us there. I am in no rush at all to learn the answer, and in fact if we never figure that out, I won't care. Science just follows the evidence, whether it's for the big bang or a light bulb. It will eventually get us where we need to go, based on its history and proven track record.