Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Creationism, is it reasonable? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A very common argument often brought forward by people favouring creationism is to claim that any beleif is as good as another, and that it is naive to reject creationism in favour of evolution because one can never know for certain that evolution is true. In order to illustrate the absurdity of this way of arguing, Id like to propose a bet for anyone willing to accept it. Here it follows:

    I hereby promise to pay the sum of £100 to whoever is able to cut his own head off, and without assistance place it back and visit me to claim the sum by asking for it in my mother tounge (Swedish).

    Who is to claim that it is not reasonable to accept this bet? Is it not equally arrogant to reject this offer as to reject creationism? Now, surely any person who has not atempted to claim the £100 reward should be able to realise that eaven though anyone is entiteled to have an opinion, this does not imply that every opinion is equally reasonable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    A very common argument often brought forward by people favouring creationism is to claim that any beleif is as good as another, and that it is naive to reject creationism in favour of evolution because one can never know for certain that evolution is true. In order to illustrate the absurdity of this way of arguing, Id like to propose a bet for anyone willing to accept it. Here it follows:

    I hereby promise to pay the sum of £100 to whoever is able to cut his own head off, and without assistance place it back and visit me to claim the sum by asking for it in my mother tounge (Swedish).

    Who is to claim that it is not reasonable to accept this bet? Is it not equally arrogant to reject this offer as to reject creationism? Now, surely any person who has not atempted to claim the £100 reward should be able to realise that eaven though anyone is entiteled to have an opinion, this does not imply that every opinion is equally reasonable.
    Uhmm, you're ignoring a few laws of nature there mate. Evolution is true, however, it is something that is passed down through the generations, not something that can be achieved by an individual. Such as a third eye for instance. If a bug was born with an extra eye, and this extra eye helped it catch more food and stay alive etc, then those bugs of that species with two eyes would gradually die out to a growing number of the more successful three eyed lot. Survival of the fittest essentially.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    A very common argument often brought forward by people favouring creationism is to claim that any beleif is as good as another, and that it is naive to reject creationism in favour of evolution because one can never know for certain that evolution is true. In order to illustrate the absurdity of this way of arguing, Id like to propose a bet for anyone willing to accept it. Here it follows:

    I hereby promise to pay the sum of £100 to whoever is able to cut his own head off, and without assistance place it back and visit me to claim the sum by asking for it in my mother tounge (Swedish).

    Who is to claim that it is not reasonable to accept this bet? Is it not equally arrogant to reject this offer as to reject creationism? Now, surely any person who has not atempted to claim the £100 reward should be able to realise that eaven though anyone is entiteled to have an opinion, this does not imply that every opinion is equally reasonable.
    I would like somebody to prove mathematically that it is not statistically impossible for millions of species over millions of years to randomly evolve? Then you have to figure the odds of a cloud of dust condenseing into a planet. NO, make that a thousand planets and all the stars. Why isn't there life on every planet? If evolution was true, then organism would adapt to live on mercury, and venus, and mars, and the moon too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    well pointed out, creationism is a joke and i think it says something very profound about religion in america that they are still arguing over whether it should be given class time
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Evolution and creation are both theories. Garenteed evolution has got a lot of evidence to back it up but it has not been proven yet which is why it is still called a theory. Creation is another theory which hasn't been proven or disproven. It is still a posibility in the eyes of many people and I don't think it can be disproven or it would have been already.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Evolution and creation are both theories. Garenteed evolution has got a lot of evidence to back it up but it has not been proven yet which is why it is still called a theory. Creation is another theory which hasn't been proven or disproven. It is still a posibility in the eyes of many people and I don't think it can be disproven or it would have been already.
    creation of the earth in 6000 years have been proved to be a load of rubbish
    the great flood is a joke
    i could go on....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Evolution and creation are both theories. Garenteed evolution has got a lot of evidence to back it up but it has not been proven yet which is why it is still called a theory. Creation is another theory which hasn't been proven or disproven. It is still a posibility in the eyes of many people and I don't think it can be disproven or it would have been already.
    Evolution has been proven actually, hence the 'law of evolution' that is taught in schools here in Australia. The example given has been mankind itself. Just think, to be 6ft tall 100 years ago was a rarity, these days, the average height of an 18yr old is closer to 6ft3inches. That my friend is evolution.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    creation of the earth in 6000 years have been proved to be a load of rubbish
    the great flood is a joke
    i could go on....
    Has creation generally be proved rubbish or just the time scale. Because we were still taught it 4 years ago when going over theories of developement of the human race in gcse science.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    creation of the earth in 6000 years have been proved to be a load of rubbish
    the great flood is a joke
    i could go on....
    Indeed. Do please go on though, this will be interesting if anyone continues to argue against such overwhelming odds.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Just think, to be 6ft tall 100 years ago was a rarity, these days, the average height of an 18yr old is closer to 6ft3inches. That my friend is evolution.
    No it isn't. It is improved nutrition.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Evolution has been proven actually, hence the 'law of evolution' that is taught in schools here in Australia. The example given has been mankind itself. Just think, to be 6ft tall 100 years ago was a rarity, these days, the average height of an 18yr old is closer to 6ft3inches. That my friend is evolution.
    6 ft 3 inches where do you live? I am pretty sure that evolution hasn't been 100% proven and that is why in my exam papers it is still refered to as the theory. Most of science is a theory. Evolution is likely to be correct and sometimes is taught like it is the only possibility but most biologists/geneticists will admit that there is a chance it could be wronge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    No, a flood happened. Almost every ancient culture has folk tales of a flood happening very long ago in the past, cultures that have had no contact until recently. There is irrefutable geological evidence for a flood between 8000 and 6000 BC. The ice age ended c. 10000 BC. Ice caps melted, sea levels rose; but in rapid steps not gradually. Millions of square miles of land were submerged in that period.

    So when you read of the Noah flood in the bible, this is certainly not the only account of a flood, there are hundreds of others, from disparate sources, with suprisingly similar details. Obviously the bilbical version is allegorical, but it is highly likely that its just an allegorical written version of a real event passed down orally.
    The ice age thing is quite correct, but the Noah and his Ark thing isn't. Pity though, because I'd love to have seen it. Surely, even back then, such things were worth preserving. (if they existed that is)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    No, a flood happened. Almost every ancient culture has folk tales of a flood happening very long ago in the past, cultures that have had no contact until recently. There is irrefutable geological evidence for a flood between 8000 and 6000 BC. The ice age ended c. 10000 BC. Ice caps melted, sea levels rose; but in rapid steps not gradually. Millions of square miles of land were submerged in that period.

    So when you read of the Noah flood in the bible, this is certainly not the only account of a flood, there are hundreds of others, from disparate sources, with suprisingly similar details. Obviously the bilbical version is allegorical, but it is highly likely that its just an allegorical written version of a real event passed down orally.
    ok so you actually think that noah got two of each species of a boat and saved them?
    a few basic questions to consider before i get really into this
    how did he feed them?
    where did all the water come from? there is not enough to flood all the land masses
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    The ice age thing is quite correct, but the Noah and his Ark thing isn't. Pity though, because I'd love to have seen it. Surely, even back then, such things were worth preserving. (if they existed that is)
    Again it is your oppion that there wasn't a guy called Noah who built an ark. There may have been....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Has creation generally be proved rubbish or just the time scale. Because we were still taught it 4 years ago when going over theories of developement of the human race in gcse science.
    what were you taught, by creationsim i assume it to mean, the believe that genesis in the bible is true
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    No it isn't. It is improved nutrition.
    No it isn't. In fact, the nutrition has remained rather constant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I am pretty sure that evolution hasn't been 100% proven and that is why in my exam papers it is still refered to as the theory. Most of science is a theory. Evolution is likely to be correct and sometimes is taught like it is the only possibility but most biologists/geneticists will admit that there is a chance it could be wronge.
    All of science is theory, by definition. It cannot be proven, but very strong evidence can be brought in its favour. Evolution and creationism are both theories, but the difference is that there is a lot of evidence for evolution and hardly any for creationism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What about the Dinosaurs? If the Earth was created 6000 years ago, where did all those bones that were millions of years old come from?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Sorry but you've completely misunderstood what I was saying.

    There was a global flood some time between 8000 and 6000 BC.
    Large areas of land were inundated.
    The Noah story is an allegory (Read: made up).
    ok its just that when people talk about creationism and the great flood they normally mean noah, i appreciate the fact that its unlikely that you would of agreed with them, but i wasnt sure
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    All of science is theory, by definition. It cannot be proven, but very strong evidence can be brought in its favour. Evolution and creationism are both theories, but the difference is that there is a lot of evidence for evolution and hardly any for creationism.
    I agree with that as I said in my first post (i think :confused: )all i was trying to point out is that creationism can't be completely ruled out.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.