[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]Sure, forget about the other few billion people.[/QUOTE]

Normal people doesn't count.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]Sure, forget about the other few billion people.[/QUOTE]

Bandwagon fallacy

By the way, if you are wowed by big numbers, here's something *actually relevant*:

Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%.

In my eternal quest for vulgarization: knowing what you're talking about and creationism don't mix.

I'm assuming that creationism is the belief that God created life. Evolution is the statement that life evolves linearly as favorable genes gain precedence to pass on to future generations as the environment molds the gene pool. So where is the conflict there? Its more of a debate between creationism and abiogenesis.

I think he was speaking with respect to the scientific community.

[ Whoops, I replied to the wrong page! Tee hee hee hee! ^_^ ]

So was I.

Not applicable. Don't misuse fallacies, Tenshu.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]Not applicable. Don't misuse fallacies, Tenshu.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? You say what X number of people claim is relevant exactly because X people claim it.

It's a general statement, I know. But it's not my intent to make that claim.

I know, 'you' almost killed my great grandfather.

We want it back.

Wow, that was a bad joke. But I shall not erase it.

Just to make clear, I mean no offense.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]Sure, forget about the other few billion people.[/QUOTE]

Science is not a democracy.

I'm not part of any organized religion, so I don't have much of a belief system when it comes to religion. However, it seems plausible that a creator or group of creators, could have 'sparked' (for lack of a better word) creation and then moved on to other things. I suppose my personal point of view is closer to that of a deist, but with the belief that there could be multiple creators. I like to think that my views are based on reason and observation, and I see no evidence that the creators interact with our world in any way. I believe that science could possibly be the means in which we'll some day discover the methods in which the creator(s) created the universe (assuming that's all there is). I'm open to the possibility that science may one day prove that creation was merely some form of random or spontaneous (for lack of a better explanation (feel free to correct me for I'm no scientist)) occurence, but it seems very unlikely to me. It's easier for me to imagine/believe in a group of intelligent beings who have always existed, than to believe in an always existing grain of sand, or one that was spontaneously created from nothing. Please excuse me if my understanding of things is quite limited, I don't really read alot about these sorts of things, although I do think about them on my hikes from time to time.



I've not read enough of his work to know the answer to this, so I should have left it alone. However, I've read quite a few of his quotes, which were possibly taken out of context, and they just don't seem logical to me. For instance, one of his quotes (which I believe I've memorized word for word) is in one of my favorite Juno Reactor songs...



I find the idea that there could even be an infinite universe without the aid of a creator to be absurd. I can see how people might believe in an expanding universe (one that expands so quickly that it seems infinite) without the aid of a creator, but not an infinite one. I also find it difficult to comprehend why people can't fathom a creator who has possibly always existed, being able to create some form of infinity (or at least something that we would consider to be infinity).

I'm no intellectual, so feel free to tell me differently.

I believe everything was created a certain way at one point, but evolved. If a God created an entire planet full of different environments and atmospheres, it wouldn't be good if they couldn't adapt to those atmospheres and spread over the earth.
My viewpoint has subtle changes now and then, given new things I learn. It would be very closed-minded of me to have it set in stone.

I'm probably using de-evolve in a manner that seems to suggest something I didn't mean for it too. I simply meant they (or an ancestor) had an ability and because of not utilizing it, they evolve to not being able to use it. If a species was isolated from light, it would evolve into not having eyes. Cave fishes, for example. No need for eyes in total darkness, so they have no eyes.
In my electronics class, we were taught both theories, but utilize electron flow. In my Electronics Physics class, our instructor used conventional flow. Yes, both theories contradict, and electron flow is most likely the correct one. However, just because one is incorrect doesn't mean it doesn't have application values. It's easier to design a DC circuit using electron flow theory, it's easier to desing an AC circuit using conventional flow theory, even though it's wrong. See my point? It can apply to other areas of science, although it often doesn't.

[edit]Sorry I don't really have time to read more, and I'm going to be busy the next few days, and out of state on one of them.[/edit]

When designing AC circuit, flow direction doesn't matter...

Not exactly. You need to know which way your signal is going if your going to design something based on it.

To me, evolution makes more sense than creationism. However, having some higher being starting the ball rolling with mirco-organisms or the process in which micro-organisms were started(or even how the universe started) and then letting evolution take its course makes more sense to me than just evolution by itself. *shrug*

How about someone attempts to formalise creationism in such a way that actually makes it possible to prove or disprove in a scientific manner? You know, in the same way that Mort-Hog formalised darwinian evolution earlier in the thread.

But in AC, it's going to go both ways.

If you're using a series of transistors to rectify AC to DC, then you must use electron direction flow, especially if you have an asymmetric circuit.

'Postive-to-negative' isn't a theory of anything, it isn't even a theory.
Electricity is the flow of charged particles -> Those charged particles are usually electrons -> Electrons are negatively charged (in relation to protons) -> Like charges repel ----> Therefore, an eletrical circuit must flow from the negative to the positive.

(Or rather, the 'negative' point is defined as the point from which electrons flow, as the point is only negative if the electrons are)

In order to suggest that current flows positive to negative you must disprove every single one of those statements, which has until now been thoroughly proven countless times over.

Positive-to-negative is just a relic from ancient science. No, they weren't stupid, they just didn't have the technology we do, and they couldn't make the right assertions. They guessed, and they guessed wrong. We're stupid for still relying upon their guess which has been proven wrong. (The reason we do is that it doesn't actually make that big of a difference, it's just a little subtlety that needs to be remembered when doing complex circuitry. but that doesn't make the positive-to-negative idea any less wrong)

I think the point that Hawkins is making is that the Universe is space and time. Before the Universe, there was no time. The concept of 'before' has no meaning, because 'before' requires time. There is no 'before' the Universe, because the beginning of the Universe was the beginning of time. Talking about 'before' or 'after' the Universe is simply an impossibility, because they are concepts that require a Universe to exist in.

Just an F.Y.I...

Time = a measurement.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]Sure, forget about the other few billion people.[/QUOTE]

Only about 1 billion are Catholic, and there's no statistic on the other sects.

No, it isn't. See General Relativity.

Yoshi, the other sects also comprise about a billion. 2 billion Christians in the world.. I thought that was fairly common knowledge.

I would hope not since it isn't even a form of government.

[EDIT:] Edited because I don't want to start yet another arguement to derail the thread.

Oh come on. Stop throwing with numbers. Those aren't arguments. Just because a big number of people do/think something, doesn't mean they're right. You will have to take into account the reasons why they think that. But since belief (unlike science) isn't based upon evidence whatsoever, there is no way you can ever tell who is right. For all we know, everything in science may be right, but may still have been developed by that same God after all. There is no way to prove God. It's a matter of believing, or not believing.

Even if (a) God chose to 'show' himself to us, then still we couldn't be sure if we could trust what we saw, taking into account the possible existence of other civilizations who may have advanced technologies, etc.

There's just no way you can tell. Belief is not rational, science is. The two will never understand eachother because they are diametrically opposed ways of thinking.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Yes, very common knowledge

Sources?[/QUOTE]

http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#People
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

and many, many, many more...

Yes, very common knowledge

Sources?

[QUOTE= Freelancer]Thousands is more appropriate to say because there exists multiple thousands in Utah, not multiple millions. Only a Couple million.[/QUOTE]

Hahahahahaha

Sorry, but that was totally ridiculous. In the arguement about creation and Evolution, and at least on person gets technical about how to word the population of Utah.


I love Massassi.

I had skimmed all of the relevant posts to what I was referring to. Correcting Freelancer. I stated I wasn't interested in the debate of evolution vs alternative views and I clearly made statements related directly to the topic and not another boring evolution debate which some seem to want this thread to be.

So in conclusion, don't criticize me for not joining the evolution debate when my posts were certainly on topic. You guys are more than able to prattle on without me.

Because it explains the world around us without a divine creator. For hundreds of years science has been shunned by the Catholic church because it threatens them. Read any modern european history book, it's all in there...

I'm not saying that theists haven't and don't, to this day, treat science as a threat to religion. Anovis said that it was a threat - a perspective outside of the Catholic Church. I was wondering what his reasoning was.