A Debate of Evolutionism vs. Creationism

[Brain]

An obviously hypothetical scenario: You are the only human being on the planet, nothing even remotely resembliing your intelligence has ever walked the planet. One day, you decide to take a walk and on your trip you find a watch. You cannot recall ever making this watch and no animanl has the mental capacity even close to the level needed to build said watch. Obviously the only possible explanation is that the watch came into existence of its own accord.

By now your probably laughing at me and saying "What a crackpot". But if we are able to assume that living beings that are infinitely more complex than this watch came into existence without the influence of some greater being, through random mutations that 99.9% of the time are harmful rather than beneficial, who are we to say the watch formation didn't happen of its own accord.

The study of an object can help you reveal the most likely processes by which it came to be. Given the fact that it is impossible for the watch to change other than through boring natural processes such as rusting, much less replicate itself, evidently another object or entity had to be involved in its creation. This excludes evolutionary explanations to its existence. Living beings are much more complex than a watch, but they can reproduce, they can mutate, etc. Given all the properties living beings have, we can determine the most likely process that could create them. And that process is, behold, evolution.

A watch looks like it was made by humans (or similarly advanced entities). Humans (and other living beings) look like they were made by evolution. Given a watch, you can infer the existence of humans (or similarly advanced entities); given humans (or other living beings) you can infer the existence of evolution.

I'm not quite ready to enter the debate, but I'm just wondering what the hypothetical chances of abiogenesis ("something from nothing") are compared to creationism ("intelligent design" by a "creator God"). Both sides of the spectrum use the "well, the chances of your idea are so ridiculously small that my idea is much more plausible" argument (which is a fallacy either way), but both sides are also hard pressed to present their numbers.

The comparison is not fair because "intelligent design" by a "creator God" is ill-defined. The chances of abiogenesis are computable, maybe not in practice, but at least in theory. The chances of intelligent design are impossible to compute because there is no proper characterization of the entity which is supposed to have designed us, much less of how he would have done it. We would have to determine what kinds of entities can be gods, the probability of a god existing, the probability that he would even want to create life as we know it, and then the probability of him doing it in a way that produces the evidence we observe. Problem is, this requires God to be intelligible, which he often isn't by definition.

And obviously it's impossible to calculate probabilities for special creation via supernatural power, but it falls victim to Ockham's Razor more than probability. It's far more parsimonious to have abiogenesis occurring as a result of already-well-understood chemical processes rather than as magic. Particularly because those pesky scientists start asking questions about how the magic works.

Ockham's Razor is a probabilistic argument. It places prior probability on all theories saying that simple theories are inherently more likely to be true than complex ones. Since the posterior probability of a theory is proportional to the likelihood of the evidence under that theory multiplied by its prior, if evidence cannot tell apart two theories, what remains is the prior.

More specifically, Ockham's razor says that "just X" is inherently more probable than "X and Y". If "just X" explains the evidence just as well as "X and Y", the former must be preferred. Y should only be considered in circumstances where its addition gives us greater explanatory power.

 

[Luxormaniac]

Religion is like "Science" that Obi speaks of. You just follow the scientific method.
Innocent until proven guilty, existent until proven not.

There is a sizable percentage of the population that believes that the 1969 lunar landing was a hoax. It was never "proved" it was there; how can we trust it? But the reasonable majority of the population believes that it happened. What proof do we have? Little or none. And yet we believe it so.

I've never seen the conflicts in the Middle East, but I know they exist. Why? I've seen signs and things that ran from between me and there (e.g. the media.) God is the same way- try and experiment, test your hypothesis, and if you follow a soundly designed experiment (the Bible has good directions)

But the Bible predicts all of this apostacizing and whatnot, so its not surprising. I do like what TAY said about how the two are not mutually exclusive.

And as I predicted, the evolutionists are all over this thread. We Creationists are a dying breed...

And Obi, I am oppossed to calling it "science," as science can reach so many conflicting conclusions by the same pathways as to destroy all trust in "science" today. Science supports everything the same, since data can be interpreted practically any way you want.

And I didn't even know this thread existed. My computer bugged out when I clicked "post thread," so I thought this thread was never created. That's funny.

But how do we know this thread didn't just evolve out of the bits and bytes?

 

[Bam]

why would you ever subscribe to a belief that the odds of life are "for sure tiny?" last time i checked the odds of the right number of ingredients/conditions*size of the universe was considered reasonably probable by stephen hawking himself

his proof was for 1 or 0 gods. it is kind of implied by the language if you think about it but I'd like to see it too.

I don't subscribe to the belief, which is why I stated that it is composed of fallacious reasoning. I was just wondering if anybody had the numbers because both sides seem to spout them about so much. Where did you get that stuff from Stephen Hawking - is it in a book? If so, I'd like to check it out.

And now that you mention that about X-Act's proof, I remember. But I'd still like to see it.

Brain, how is God not intelligible by definition? I think I'm just confused as to what you're getting at, but assuming that we're talking about the standard Christian God here, wouldn't that make him supremely intelligent, divine, and all-powerful, at least for our purposes (basically the traits given to him in the Bible)? Granted, any numbers generated by using that example would only be of any meaning to those who believe in the same God, but I would still be interested to see the results (too bad I know now way of going about it, otherwise I would try to calculate them myself).

 

[Surgo]

God is the same way- try and experiment, test your hypothesis, and if you follow a soundly designed experiment (the Bible has good directions)

What the hell are you talking about? How do you plan on putting this God you speak of to the test, exactly? How are you planning on carrying out this experiment?

 

[BlakBlastoise]

Throw yourself in a den of hungry lions for a couple of days and wait for angles to save hold the lions mouths shut.

Then you can walk into a huge oven and the angels will once again re-appear and you will not feel any heat.

I was raised to be religious, but now that i'm a little older and slightly educated, I don't have as much faith in certain things.

 

[Brain]

Brain, how is God not intelligible by definition? I think I'm just confused as to what you're getting at, but assuming that we're talking about the standard Christian God here, wouldn't that make him supremely intelligent, divine, and all-powerful, at least for our purposes (basically the traits given to him in the Bible)? Granted, any numbers generated by using that example would only be of any meaning to those who believe in the same God, but I would still be interested to see the results (too bad I know now way of going about it, otherwise I would try to calculate them myself).

"Supremely intelligent, divine and all-powerful" is not an intelligible description, it's just a string of hyperboles. "Divine" is by definition a property of gods, so it adds no information. "Supremely intelligent" and "all-powerful" are redundant and tells us nothing about how God's intelligence and power are used. The main problem with most definitions of God are that they pile up so many omni attributes that some of them end up clashing, making the definition inconsistent. The most cited one might be omnibenevolence and omnipotence coupled with the existence of suffering. Then there is the claim that God is "outside of time" coupled with his sentience and the fact he created stuff - since sentience and creation are processes, they require time to operate. I have seldom seen any characterization of God that was not just a debilitating set of superlatives (or wasn't equating it to another concept in what can only be construed as an abuse of language, like "God is love").

And Obi, I am oppossed to calling it "science," as science can reach so many conflicting conclusions by the same pathways as to destroy all trust in "science" today. Science supports everything the same, since data can be interpreted practically any way you want.

No it can't. It must be interpreted in a way which matches the evidence and yields testable predictions. Good luck doing that with religion.

 

[jamespicone]

Religion is like "Science" that Obi speaks of. You just follow the scientific method.
Innocent until proven guilty, existent until proven not.

The thing is, all your examples have evidence for them. What evidence do we have that we went to the moon? Well, the kilograms of moon rocks that were brought back, the lander on the moon that you can see through a telescope, a bunch of photos, etc. etc. So it's more parsimonious to think that the moon landings happened than to think that they didn't.

God, on the other hand? Well there's not really much in the way of evidence. I can't think of a single thing that points to the existence of a supernatural entity. We don't have any reason to think a god or gods exists.

Creationism has been a dying breed since Darwin postulated evolution, and for a very simple reason - The evidence for evolution is incredibly strong.

Finally, science does not 'support everything the same'. You can't interpret data to support anything you want. If you drop a rock, it falls - you can't interpret 'not gravity' out of that. And the fact remains that the explanations science comes up with work. Humanity advanced at a staggeringly slow pace until science came onto the field - the concept has been behind almost everything about modern civilisation.

Throw yourself in a den of hungry lions for a couple of days and wait for angles to save hold the lions mouths shut.

[23]And, yea, many angles did appear, of many measures, acute, obtuse, and reflex. [24]And they did close the maw of the beasts, such that the faithful were not harmed. [25]And the faithful did exclaim "Yea, they art radian!"

 

[BlakBlastoise]

[23]And, yea, many angles did appear, of many measures, acute, obtuse, and reflex. [24]And they did close the maw of the beasts, such that the faithful were not harmed. [25]And the faithful did exclaim "Yea, they art radian!"

I'm not sure what you are trying to point out. But that is what i was referring to.

 

[obi]

Religion is like "Science" that Obi speaks of. You just follow the scientific method.

Religion is by definition non-scientific. To me, religion is the attempts to use other-worldly explanations for the way things work, and is based on faith. Science is entirely this-worldly and based on evidence and reason.

Innocent until proven guilty, existent until proven not.

The default position in science is skepticism. To take the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to ideas means you must accept the following:

There in an invisible flying refrigerator named Frank. He gives people 900 dollars (he's recently raised his rates to keep up with inflation) if they believe in him for three years straight, but if you ever doubt, you don't get the money.

Science would have us reject Frank's existence until he can be proven real. Of course, Frank can never be proven real (because the believers will always to the people who didn't get money: "Oh, you must have doubted him!"), and as such, is non-scientific.

There is a sizable percentage of the population that believes that the 1969 lunar landing was a hoax. It was never "proved" it was there; how can we trust it? But the reasonable majority of the population believes that it happened. What proof do we have? Little or none. And yet we believe it so.

As I've said in response to other posts, science doesn't act on majority opinion.

We never landed on the Moon; it was a sound stage on Mars.

I've never seen the conflicts in the Middle East, but I know they exist. Why? I've seen signs and things that ran from between me and there (e.g. the media.)

This is because the evidence for their existence outweighs the evidence for their inexistence (they are probable). What's more, if I so desired, I could visit the Middle East and see for myself (they are independently verifiable).

God is the same way- try and experiment, test your hypothesis, and if you follow a soundly designed experiment (the Bible has good directions)

Would you outline this experiment for me? I'd like to make sure I do it right.

And Obi, I am oppossed to calling it "science," as science can reach so many conflicting conclusions by the same pathways as to destroy all trust in "science" today. Science supports everything the same, since data can be interpreted practically any way you want.

Imagine an experiment in which you measure the intensity of a constant noise as you move farther from the source. Here is some imaginary data:

1 m = 60 dB
2 m = 57 dB
3 m = 55 dB
4 m = 51 dB

The decibel scale is logarithmic (base 10, with 10 decibels being a 10 * increase in intensity), so from this data, a reasonable person would conclude that when you double the distance, the intensity is quartered. It is impossible to form a reasonable interpretation of this data that says sounds get louder as you get farther from the source.

 

[Lexite]

Obi, your definition of religion is flawed. Religion is not limited to the "explanation of how things work". Taoism, Buddhism and several others are religions that do not explain how things work and focus more on how to live life, not an explanation of life.

religion

–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8.
Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.
get religion, Informal.
a.
to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.

b.
to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

 

[Griffin]

Both Taoism and Buddhism do explain things. Buddhism explains life and death (reincarnation, samsara, karma, etc.), to give you an example. Taoism explains the relation between the universe (macrocosmos) and person (microcosmos).

Besides, I think religion is a very widely interpretable concept, and Obi said that that was what religion is to him.

 

[matty]

Or how about people just think about both as reasonable explanations?

I'm an Evolutionary Biologist right now (go to school at University of Colorado) and I've drawn some conclusions.

It is crystal clear to me that evolution happened, is happening, and will continue to happen until all life on this planet is terminated. It is just fact. If you don't believe me, do some research and educate yourself. I recently just took a class about the macro portion of evolution and learned some pretty interesting and compelling evidence that many don't usually bring up.

However...
The fact of creationism and God shouldn't be ruled. I myself use to be Catholic but coming to school I stopped going to church for different reasons. As sure as I am that there is evolution that started us, I am even more sure that there is some other being or thing that had to have created us. You can't explain how 'perfect' everything is set up solely on the basis of evolution. It just isn't possible in my mind.

So I've come to the opinion slash decision of maybe a blending of both? What stops one or the other from being completely right or wrong? Why can't both alternatives be right?

I realize my post is somewhat vague so I may come latter and explain myself in more detail if anyone is interested.

 

[jamespicone]

You can't explain how 'perfect' everything is set up solely on the basis of evolution.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but it sounds like some variation of the teleological argument.

In which case:
- We should expect creatures to be extremely well-adapted to their environments, because they evolve into them. Evolution directly predicts that things will be good at what they do.

- On the other hand, evolution also predicts some evolutionary legacies - as someone who's studying biology, I'm sure you know about the variety of interesting atavisms and the like in a wide variety of animals - something which suggests the Creator has a very interesting sense of humour, if you're going for a creation angle.

- If you're looking more at a "The universe is quite well set up for life" angle, well, no it isn't. 99.99999999% of the universe is a vacuum at 3 degrees kelvin. Most of the remainder is a roiling mass of plasma at 6,000,000 degrees kelvin. Most of the remainder of <i>that</i> is a methane-ammonia atmosphere at a pretty cold temperature - maybe 100 to 200 kelvin - that could maybe support some kinds of life.

And we've only just got to the bits of space that are terrestrial planets - let alone terrestrial planets with a decent atmosphere, a functioning magnetic field, close enough to their star that it's warm enough for interesting chemistry, far enough away that it's not scorching, and so on. The percentage of the universe that is suited for life is so incredibly small that I find arguments that it was all specially created for us so ridiculously laughable it actually hurts. (And before someone jumps in and says "If there's so little of the universe that's suitable for life, why do you think it just appeared by chance?", my answer is that while the percentage measure is small, the absolute measure is still pretty big - i.e., 0.000000000000001% of the universe, or whatever unimaginably small percentage it is, is still quite a bit, really).

And that's only considering the spatial dimension. At what times was our universe suitable for life? Not as long as you might think. Maybe 5 to 6 billion years. Before that, there just wasn't anywhere that was suitable, because supernovas hadn't spewed out enough interesting elements yet - that, and the universe was still far too energetic.

Given that the universe is 13.7 billion years old or so, that's about 40% of the universe's lifespan that it's been suitable for life.

And a number of cosmological ideas lead to an infinite number of universes, all varying slightly in fundamental constants and laws and the like. If any one of them is true, the anthropic principle guarantees that there'll be life somewhere.

And you're assuming that the fundamental mechanics and constants of the universe are changeable - that the universe could have come about some other way.

With all that said, though, yes, you can have a creator-god and evolution, although it works best if the creator-god only creates life. Or better yet, if he just creates the universe and then buggers off, because then it's completely impossible to test his/her/its existence. There's just no particular reason to believe that. Ockham strikes again!

 

[Echo]

As far as I've looked into the subject, I find myself following the lines of theistic evolution. I've thought in the same manner as long as I've been conscious about my Christianity and just recently got to know that it actually has a theoretic name for it too.

After all, I find it more than reasonable that neither side of this argument is right or wrong.

 

[sbc]

I personally don't even see why the notion that God created the earth and evolution are even mutually exclusive.

 

[Goodbar]

I don't see why devout creationists flip out when observed facts are presented to them, maybe they give themselves more credit for knowing so much about the bible than their own god? At this point I don't think it's reasonable to argue God on a scientific level. He just isn't as necessary anymore to explain things anymore. Sure I could believe that only God could have begun life, but I'm better off believing in abiogenesis till it's proven wrong (that is, if it is). I suppose theists will always have "well God created existence" though. No I don't think theists believe what they do to explain the origins of existence, but their beliefs are probably more based on philosophical reasons. I think it's more appropriate to argue his existence then on that level than on a scientific level, it's also one where both sides of the argument aren't so mutually exclusive.

 

[obi]

Obi, your definition of religion is flawed. Religion is not limited to the "explanation of how things work". Taoism, Buddhism and several others are religions that do not explain how things work and focus more on how to live life, not an explanation of life.

religion

–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I use this definition when talking about religion. If it's just a collection of beliefs, there is nothing to distinguish it from a philosophy and the terms are interchangeable. I don't like redundancy, so if I'm referring to something broader, I will use a term like "philosophy". Religion as I use and read it is always mystical.

You can't explain how 'perfect' everything is set up solely on the basis of evolution. It just isn't possible in my mind.

I don't see how things are set up perfectly. If things seem suited to their environment, it's because creatures tend to adapt to their environment, not because the environment was made to support creatures.

Imagine an alien race observing humanity: "Ah, it is interesting that their legs have evolved in such a way as to allow them to sit in modern chairs. Their eyes are in the front of their heads... This must have been to allow them to wear the style of glasses they seem to prefer. And those hot dogs... The shape was almost certainly decided to fit into modern hot dog buns." (the hot dog precedes the hot dog bun). You're confusing cause and effect. If things appear fine-tuned, it's because the only life that can survive is that which works in its environment.

So I've come to the opinion slash decision of maybe a blending of both? What stops one or the other from being completely right or wrong? Why can't both alternatives be right?

The scientific method requires that we reject any hypothesis that is not replicable, falsifiable, and objectively testable. Religion and science are mutually exclusive. If religion is right, then that means that there is some other-worldly, unexplainable phenomenon that caused all of this. Such a force is entirely beyond the ken of science (or else science will some day explain it, and it's not mystical).

I personally don't even see why the notion that God created the earth and evolution are even mutually exclusive.

Those two aren't, but the concept of religion is non-scientific. There are perfectly credible scientific theories for how the Earth was formed.




And stop making dumb posts that I have to delete. If the content of your post is "There's no point posting in this thread.", then stop being a hypocrite and don't post in this thread.

 

[Pyr0]

One thing I think is flawed is the way some creationists think.

I mean, if god is all knowing, he could probably be smart enough to make creatures that adapt to their needs and evolve accordingly.

I'm pretty sure that if a programmer could make a program that fixes itself and upgrades it to better suit the users needs they would do it, but programmers don't have that power, only god could do that.

In conclusion, creationists and evolutionists don't have to be complete opposites, god could have created evolution itself.

 

[BlueGroudon]

I agree with the last poster saying that God and evolution don't have to be exclusive. If God could have created the world, then how could he not create evolution?

 

[lati0s]

Now for a sound proof that the more intelligent half of Americans in the US are creationist. This is expected to be criticized, but Galileo was criticized too.

Are intelligent people wealthy or poor? Wealthy.
Are wealthy people Republican or Democrat? Republican.
Are Republicans conservative or liberal? Conservative.
Are Conservatives evangelical? Heck yes.

So you see that the intelligent half of the population is with me :)
Along with Newton, Einstein, and Moses.

that is the stuidist logic ever, this thread is proof that you're wrong as smogon is full of people of above average intelligence and you are like the only creationist here

 

[Captain Falcon]

So what if it involves division by zero, who says you can't do that?

Erm, the laws of matematics.

So you see that the intelligent half of the population is with me

as it was pointed out earlier, just because the majority belive something, doesn't make it correct.

I am a practicing christian, and I am pretty confident that god is real, but I am also confiednt that creationism is a load of bullshit. I wouldn't say religion and science are mutually exclusive, both contain elements of the other.

 

[CaptKirby]

Now for a sound proof that the more intelligent half of Americans in the US are creationist. Clearly, this is why the majority of University students are conservative... This is expected to be criticized, but Galileo was criticized too. Yes, clearly all criticism is invalid. This changes everything! (Postscript: who criticized Galileo? The conservatives, the evangelical, the wealthy, those who expounded a false view that anything challenging your 'system' was invalid. Congratulations, your entire post becomes invalid here.)

Are intelligent people wealthy or poor? Wealthy. Pretty sure that geniuses do not get rewarded jobs because of an intelligence quotient test or SAT score, but rather it helps them get into colleges for a slightly better chance at wealth over the entire base of people attending or not attending college.
Are wealthy people Republican or Democrat? Republican. So THAT's why Obama garnered more campaign contributions! He is not a secret Muslim, but has secret Republican contributors! Otherwise he would not have outraced McCain so vastly in monetary terms.
Are Republicans conservative or liberal? Conservative. Tautology; very useful in any proof. Why yes, professor, it is vital for me to change 1=1 to 2=2.
Are Conservatives evangelical? Heck yes. You just sinned by saying a curse word.

So you see that the intelligent half of the population is with me :) So only half is intelligent? That is not a very scientific analysis, as splitting it right down the middle leaves those who are very mediocre but just over 50% in the intelligent group (leaving aside the question of how we are defining intelligence, which is quite strictly impossible). Pretty obviously some sort of exponential approach is required.
Along with Newton, Einstein, and Moses.

Back to Obi's countering of my points, many conclusions can be reached from the same data. The proof is out there that 1=2. So what if it involves division by zero, who says you can't do that? A bunch of people in the "system." Damn those zany mathematicians! How dare they use eloquent proofs and methodologies to power the world with their craziness! Conspiracy, I cry! By cartoonist Gary Larson's clearly an expert on everything ever definition of philosophy (as put forth in a Far Side cartoon), Philosophy is a bunch of people saying "that doesn't make any sense" and coming up with another idea. Which it is. This extra, redundant affirmation finally convinced me. I was teetering before this sentence, but now you have me. And "Science" Conspiracy, I cry! involves having an open mind, which nobody here has. No? It involves learning facts and fucking applying them. My mind is closed, Obi's mind is closed, no one came here to change their mind. It's just an argument leading nowhere.

Anyway, the Bible told us days like this would come where bla bla and bla would happen and etcetera. The Bible predicted specific future events that have not supposedly passed in the early first century or vague, constantly variegated and contradictory portents of Jesus taking us back to heaven? I must have missed those...since they do not exist.
And personally I got tired of this thread a while ago. Which is why you made a longwinded post to 'prove' yourself, and then threw this little line in to disparage the worth of everyone else's thoughts. I'm going to go make a political thread because at least that has some entertainment value. Oh, I do not know about that; this post was pretty entertaining.
Hoping this gets locked soon- Luxor. Bye guys.

 

[spies]

I would like to hear some of what Newton, Einstein and Moses talk about all the time...

edit: I'm not sure what you actually mean by "intelligent" but you're saying that

intelligent = republican = conservative = wealthy = creationist

which is simply not true as the next posts have proven. "I'm smart and claim this so I'm right, and all my friends who are also smart back me up" is what you're saying.

wealthy people tend to be republican because of the whole taxes deal. Conservative political ideals favor wealthy people.

who says you can't divide by zero? the laws of mathematics... wait according to you their evil conspiracy

 

[Luduan]

I can hardly type for laughing.

Now for a sound proof that the more intelligent half of Americans in the US are creationist. This is expected to be criticized, but Galileo was criticized too.

Are intelligent people wealthy or poor? Wealthy.
Are wealthy people Republican or Democrat? Republican.
Are Republicans conservative or liberal? Conservative.
Are Conservatives evangelical? Heck yes.

So you see that the intelligent half of the population is with me :)
Along with Newton, Einstein, and Moses.

Einstein was not a creationist and the other two are pre-Darwin. Practically all of the scientists who actually study biology accept evolution. Really, this is like arguing for geocentrism because Artistotle accepted it. Level of belief in creationism is inversely correlated with educational level, which serves to discredit your idea further.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jun/08/20060608-111826-4947r/

Back to Obi's countering of my points, many conclusions can be reached from the same data. The proof is out there that 1=2. So what if it involves division by zero, who says you can't do that? A bunch of people in the "system." By cartoonist Gary Larson's definition of philosophy (as put forth in a Far Side cartoon), Philosophy is a bunch of people saying "that doesn't make any sense" and coming up with another idea. Which it is. And "Science" involves having an open mind, which nobody here has. My mind is closed, Obi's mind is closed, no one came here to change their mind. It's just an argument leading nowhere.

Anyway, the Bible told us days like this would come where bla bla and bla would happen and etcetera.

No, that is not what philosophy is. And I don't remember the Bible saying "bla bla and bla would happen and etcetera." Do you have a scripture reference for this?

And personally I got tired of this thread a while ago. I'm going to go make a political thread because at least that has some entertainment value.
Hoping this gets locked soon- Luxor. Bye guys.

I find your posts rather entertaining, so I think this thread is fine. Honestly, I am not going to bother reiterating what I have said before. This guy does it far more eloquently than I could hope:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI1l7-RngRY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeutCHeTtE0

 

[akuchi]

Are intelligent people wealthy or poor? Wealthy.
Are wealthy people Republican or Democrat? Republican.
Are Republicans conservative or liberal? Conservative.
Are Conservatives evangelical? Heck yes.

I cannot believe you just said that. I am intelligent (and modest too ;)) but I'm absolutely skint. As is every university student. I expect to become one of the best in my chosen field (ancient history) and spend my life in academia but I'm skint as fuck. My on/off boyfriend is doing a philosophy phd and has just had his house repossessed because, you know, he can't work as he has cancer. How stupid of him to get it. Some people actually aren't materialistic money-grabbing bastards who's only aim in life is to get the big house on the hill. Are people working in the voluntary and charity sector now stupid? Some of the smartest, most inspirational women I know work reduced hours because they spend the rest of their time volunteering at Rape Crisis centres; how backward of them. Are doctors doing aid work abroad now retarded because they're not earning as much as their American brethren? Wealth is no indicator of intelligence.
..Is Paris Hilton intelligent? Christ almighty.