Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
6 
Report this post
My country is one of the handfull of countries that have Christianity be part of the state and christian studies are part of the school curriculum, still the first thing they reminded us of in the first day of every school each year was that the holy texts shouldnt be taken litterally beucause they mainly consist of Parables, something which i think is quite evident anyway
To this day i havent understood the creationism or evolution thing in the game, i remember learing about evolution in biology class and creationism in christian studies and no one seeing any contradiction between them because nobody actually thought the "7 days" in the texts meant 7 real days in our sense of time
I hope you are larping
Political compass lol
It's a direct quote from the conversation OP is referencing with Ciara.
Wait until you hear about paleontology, physics, geology, and so on.
The issue is that they are not equal. You claim that evolution is conjecture when creationism is, to our current understandings, the very definition of conjecture. Evolution has been substantiated through different fields and many scientists, across generations.
Creationism is not falsifiable, meaning it cannot be held under scrutiny while also not aiding us one bit into understanding our world. It is a close-minded approach to accept nature at face value. Allowing both in the classroom would be like teaching students that it is possible that the human body is made up four humors, and that blood letting is an actual effective technique at treating disease as opposed to vaccinations and sanitation. It gives the unproven side, i.e. creationism and four humors, way too much validity.
Well if you did examine them critically, it would become rapidly apparent which one has been studied more extensively. Furthermore, I am unsure why you are hemmed in on evolution being a sham and speculated by "atheistic desperation." Treat evolution as you would any scientific theory and critique it on its own merits. You are literally getting lost in the sauce of your own biases and misgivings. Again, I don't understand why you believe evolution to be "psuedoscientific" when to this current day, it has not been disproven and has found increasing evidence in its favor.
Lmao. Radene is absolutely right in wondering how you would react to paleontology, physics, etc.
This is why you would compare these results to an unbiased third party. You would also collaborate with other fields to arrive at an understanding. One sole laboratory result isn't the foundation of evolution. It has been decades, hell a century, of investigation and corroboration between experts in vastly different fields. To make assumptions and just left it at that is not science. Science is self-critique/self-refinement. Mistakes can happen and ideas we took for granted may be proven wrong, but over time, our scientific foundation is better for it. Believing that creationism is a better one because of what exactly? Intent? Intent of what? Some invisible creator? We cannot work with that because how are we supposed to science our way out of problems?
"a lot LESS" is doing incredibly heavy lifting. Would give Atlas a run for his money.
It is hilarious that you can be so critical of evolution but you just give creationism a pass. Not to mention, it is probable that op does not understand how evolution works. No one that it was a spontaneous process. Literally search up "spontaneous generation by Francisco Redi" and you shall see that life was likely not spontaneously born. More probable was that certain conditions were required over significant geologic time to reliably develop single cell organisms. This is the kind of detail that religions don't go over. In the very least, you acknowledged that there is no evidence thus far for a "creator." Ultimately, you are making an appeal to ignorance. Without significant understanding/context, the human eye can be seen as too complex for our comprehension. Yet it was exactly through evolution and fields like biology that we understood how our eyes were developed through natural selection. The time scale is beyond our grasp but it is there.
Genuinely hope op was not ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Skepticism is healthy but attacking Torpor Studios over this is remarkable to say the least. Op was too easy on creation but did not give evolution the time of day.
Evolution is a proven, undeniable fact. Wether you deny this or not mdoes not change it.
That's a nice conspiracy theory, but it is entirely based on your personal ignorance and unwillingness to accept proven facts. Evolution is supported by all known, proven information at hand, from the fossil record to documented first-hand observation.
Outright false. Science is in fact quite capable of examinign the distnat past. Your inability to understand the methods used to do so - wilful or otherwise - does not make these methods invalid.
Not how this works at all. Your entire argument is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. A logical fallacy, not a valid argument. And utterly and wholly unscientifical. And as far as educated guesses go? Evolution is the one that is supported by all known and proven facts. Creationism is the one that is CONTRADICTED by all know and proven facts. It is thus the INFINITELY "worse" one.
Tl;dr: Your entire argumentation here is based on nothing but your personal ignorance and tired, old creationist fallacies and talking points, going against all know, proven facts as per usual for creationist dogma. And as usual, the only logical verdict to it is to dismiss it as nonsense.
Hanlon's Razor laughs at this utterly illogical claim you are basing on nothing but your personal gut feelings. Appeals to some nebulous common "understanding of ourselves and the world" or "a lick of sense" are nothing but meaningless rethorical flourishes. Hot air backed by nothing of substance. Protip: Your gut feelings, much as you try to call them "common sense", are not shared by others, nor do they have any value in an argument based on observed facts.
Yet another appeal to ignorance, this time with a false equivalency to boot. Protip: The "code" of life took millions of years of trial and error (with failure resulting in death) to emerge eventually. Give me enough monkeys and enough typewriters and I will get you a perfect typewriter copy of Shapespeare. How's that for an analogy?
That's nice. Our planet is also not the only one in the universe. Again: Monkeys and typewriters. Critical thinking? Your mindless repetition of tired, old creationist dogma does not even resemble it outside of your personal delusions, based on your personal ignorance. When you are calling others brainwashed and "pseudoscientifc" all you do is projecting and proving yourself an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.
Evolution is a proven, undeniable fact. You can try banning facts, but be warned that doing so has historically led to extremely negative consequences for the societies doing the denying.
Fun fact: Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics were banned as "reactionary" by the USSR for a while. The outcome was mass famines because they rejected modern agricultural techniques that were fundamentally based on Darwin's works in lieu of actual pseudo-scientific nonsense, resulting in multiple devastating misharvests. (If you wanna learn more about this, google Trofim Lysenko.)
Science is fundamentally incapable of proving things since it operates on the disproving of conjectures, scientific theories are not "facts" and are instead claims or hypotheses that we have not disproven with our current capabilities. Faith in science is antithetical to the nature of science which is constituted by doubt and backed with rational argument which is then challenged by further doubt and rational argument in an endless cycle.
The OP's problem with treating creationism and evolution equally is not solved with the compromise position offered in-game of mandating evolution while merely allowing creationism. In a de jure sense the only equal options are to ban both creationism and evolution, mandate both in all schools, or allow both and have individual schools decide as Tarquin Soll did to keep his hands clean of controversy.
The cloning example is a bit off in my view since it is countered by separating biological, mental, and temporal ages into distinct characteristics. The argument for divine creation that OP provided doesn't seem to account for survivor bias or self-regulating systems.
Reianor, do you separate micro-evolution from macro-evolution as others I have seen? Most creationists(I am not saying you are a creationist to be clear) I have encountered acknowledge genetic heritability demonstrated by Gregor Mendel. Do you agree with the accuracy of the fruit fly starvation experiments designed to show genetic and metabolic shifts within a population of fruit flies denied food for various lengths of time? Is your issue with the scientific theory of abiogenesis in which life arises from nonliving chemicals?
I noticed a lot of doubt surrounding the complexity of life, my counter-argument is that the world around us would already be fairly complex even without life, at least enough to create different niches for simple organisms to occupy. If organisms can occupy different areas with distinct environments then they will experience different pressures on their survival and an increasing presence of evolved organisms would only increase complexity within the ecosystem. My point is that even if life was seeded on Earth by an unknown being(s) then they don't have to load large complex organisms on a spaceship as if it is Noah's Ark. Aliens or supernatural entities could very easily have dropped a few simple cells in the ocean to speed things up so our sun doesn't explode too early for us to escape while saving on transportation costs by not gathering 2 of each life-form. I am fairly sure that modern technology is sufficient to drop a few blobs of cytoplasm on another world outside our solar system, it isn't very cheap but the Voyager II is outside our sun's orbit.
I brought a quote I sourced from Wikipedia's page on Charles Darwin's religious views.
In 1879 John Fordyce wrote asking if Darwin believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. Darwin replied that "a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.
We could say that Darwin is being dishonest because of his time, but it is also possible that atheistic desperation used Darwin and his research for political purposes despite him appearing to be(in my view) an agnostic Deist.
You're letting emotions lead you here. You're too offended by my rejection of your favorite evolutionism, to see the true nature of the mistake you're making.
Falling on deaf ears. Well, I expected as much.
In the first place there's a difference between evolution as a phenomenon and the theory stating that humans themselves are nothing but the result of said evolution.
But more importantly... let me just quote someone else as it seems I'm not getting through.
THIS was the key point of this whole topic.
Evolution is a scientific theory, it's about as good as a scientific theory gets nowadays (more on this in a bit).
EvolutionISM, however is an entirely unscientific phenomenon that insults the very nature of science and critical thinking. It is in the truest sense nothing more than faith in science.
Sadly. Thanks for you contribution though. It pleasant to hear a voice of reason in this sea of quasi-religious pseudo-”scientific” fanatics who fail to even see themselves as such.
It was mostly meant to illustrate one very specific point – judging temporal age of matter by it's state is in fact a leap of faith. We claim that we know it's age because A – we know how things age and B – we know what state it is in now. While in fact we only know how things have aged within the limits of our observation making A a case of wishful thinking. Lack of knowledge of any kind of interference, or more specifically and more importantly lack of certainty of it's absence, means the entire thing is an educated guess, no more no less.
Might be partially my fault but I think you're shifting from complexity of the world to complexity of life. I indirectly dragged the big bang theory into this, since those are indirectly linked in their “tag team” against creationism. Creationism is a theory about the source of both our race and our world, the part about spontaneity is from the big bang's side of things.
Universe itself is a complex system. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a perfect system, but idea of that happening spontaneously is more ridiculous than the Santa himself.
Terrible. You either openly jest without giving a ♥♥♥♥ about the subject or you have no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ idea of what you're even talking about.
Allow me to enlighten you.
Chance of a monkey typing even a single page from Shakespeare is LESS than the chance of randomly picking a star from ALL the ones in the visible part of the universe and ending up picking ours.
And it becomes ~30+ times (depending on the number of symbols on the monkey's keyboard which should vary depending on language in question and the keyboard itself) more unlikely with each added letter worth of length.
Same kind of randomonkey typing 100 pages of Shakespeare would be likewise less likely than randomly picking sun out of all the known stars 100 times out of 100 tries. (I'd give you a more precise comparison but it's been decades since I did those calculations and I'm no mood to repeat them)
You speak of chances with such certainty (pun not intended) but it seems you haven't actually studied them at all.
Darvin wasn't even behind the evolution theory in the first place.
He wrote about his observations of birds on a single island, IIRC, and that got used as an excuse to “market” the evolution theory of humanity's origins as one fathered by a scientific celebrity of that time.
Like I said it's a shameful sham.
An even bigger shame is that we've been letting this continue for generations.
There's a hereditary “scientific bias”, I didn't mention “old guard” for ♥♥♥♥♥ and giggles, it's a real problem. Scientific recognition depends on people who have earned said recognition themselves. It's a kind of circle-jerking if you will, minus the loop. People who's theories “fit” the established doctrine get recognized, anyone questioning established theories get laughed at by the power of established majority. End result – “science” has turned almost more dogmatic than the church.
It's funny hearing people talk about how “studied” the evolution theory is knowing the above.
When the only people accepted as scientists are the ones singing along, no ♥♥♥♥ sherlocks, there'll be a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of papers complementing each-other.
How many of you have even looked through at least a tenth of those “proving” works, eh?
It's even worse with “disproving creationism”. That part's not even funny. I honestly don't want to defend creationism, it appalls me to do so as a skeptic, but in the first place it's not even structured in a way that can be disproved. The centerpiece of that whole theory, God, is defined as, among other things, a being defying human comprehension. Trying to disprove it's existence or allegations of it's influence with a “scientific” argument is a logical fallacy. By his very definition god is outside the reach of study. Anything we can study would not satisfy the definition of a god.
Make no mistake (I can't believe I even have to point this out, who am I talking to here? Children?), that definitive cheating doesn't make creationism or religion itself anything more than they are. But id DOES give it “logical immunity”.
Much as we all love logic, a critical thinker that refuses to accept it's limitation should go out the front door and leave his member card at the table – he's no critical thinker at all he's a pretender. Logic, sadly, has limitations and this is one of them.
You can use logic up to the point of “this doesn't prove that it was god's work” but it doesn't work to the point of “this proves that it wasn't god's work”.
Works both ways though. Even if tomorrow some seemingly omnipotent being appears and starts performing miracles in common sight it'll still be impossible to either prove or disprove that it's in fact the god. Dems de breaks, chaps.
A few minor additions.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.
Let's try though.
Think on this – when I'm dissecting a frog am I examining a living frog or a dead one?
Historic records are at least records of the past.
Petrified remains and whatnot are object of the present.
Sure when “we” (using the term broadly here) study them we do it to try and figure out more about the past, but what we're actually studying is still but a part of our present.
Did I miss the release of a time travelling device? Or are you it's inventor and haven't made it public yet? Either way gimme, I wanna examine past as well.
There ARE actual contradictions though. For example in creationism humanity is intelligent from the get go.
But mostly the key to combining the two in the same head is to not believe in at least one of them. Preferably in both, but take what you get.
Anyway you're getting into theology here more than education.
Either way the nature of said education in-game was set in stone as ideological.
I don't like how the game handled religious education either, but that's a bit beyond the point.
Issue is we can't even give them equal treatment, and the only anti-evolutionist reply is hogwash.
Which is part of what I was ranting about. Specifically in "being forced to play the idiot" part of the rant.
At least religion can theoretically be presented in non-ideological way, since it's publicly acknowledged as a belief, even by it's own staunchest defenders.
Faith in science loves to pretend that it's not faith. Feed that ♥♥♥♥ to kids and they'll just stop questioning altogether. Brainwashing complete, now just to check if we didn't scrub TOO hard.
And probably the final addition to this long post.
If 'A' is proven to be right that automatically means that 'not A' has been proven wrong. Basics of logic, more or less.
I'm about to give you an example of a 'not A' please prove it wrong my dear believers of “science”.
You see back before the age of humanity our world was inhabited by a different kind of beings.
We would probably call them fairies. Fundamentally different from us humans, "fairies" had inherent abilities our culture may as well call magic. Matter creation, matter manipulation, future sight, they had it all. Those differences created vastly different kind of society. They built no cities, used no tools, they didn't even eat anything or breathe. They more or less had everything they wanted, and their only problem was boredom. That made them the pranksters they were. Eventually they moved on to higher plane of existence, but before they did they left one big prank behind – what we know as “fossils”, remains, and artifacts of “stone age humans”.
So while the later species in fact did undergo evolutionary changes, neither stone age “humans” nor mammoths were ever actually living beings to begin with, they were all fabricated to prank us.
No, I don't actually believe in that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, don't look at me like this. Nor am I trying to get you to believe it. What I AM trying to do is to get you to admit that you have no real proof and never will.
If you actually had it, right around the time I said that someone tampered with the fossils you'd say, “but wait, this is impossible because we have proof that fossils were never tampered with...”, but the reality of it is that science has no proof for it's assumptions, and thus can't have any kind of proof for the conclusions made using them.
And we won't be getting any until Magni finally goes public with his time travelling device and we can all ACTUALLY examine the past itself.
P.S. To the people making fun of "my gut feeling" go talk to or read about more scientists, especially the ones studying human brain functions. Many of them share this "gut feeling", as you called it (talk about an insult), and a lot of them even started to believe in god as a result.
Science begins when we refuse to lack knowledge of the things we're dealing with and ends when we refuse to deal with the things we lack knowledge of.
No one knows how much we actually DON'T know about our reality better than the real scientists do. Which is why I find "faith in science" to be so offensive. You're inverting the very concept you claim as the basis for your belief. And I happen to have a lot of respect for said concept (in it's true form that is).
Of course since the truth can change, the systems can change and everything can change then it makes sense to maintain flexibility. If the sky is blue one day and then the next day it's red then I'm better off living with the expectation that the sky could be either red or blue until the world stabilizes. If it never stabilizes then that's a belief that makes sense to hold. For something to make sense it can only be in a context where holding beliefs matters and presumably for something that can care. If I am at sea it's nonsensical for me to believe that I'm on land. And while you could certainly hold the belief that you're on land then it's likely that you won't survive long. So maybe a good way of testing our beliefs is to use them in real life? If you want to wonder about what real life is or what testing means well oops you got eaten by a shark. You don't need to worry about that question yay! There ya go belief tested.
We can't test every belief like that. Not believing in god won't get you killed. Believing in god also won't get you killed. If god says that you are to not eat bread on tuesdays and you then eat bread on that day anyway and god kills you then if you ever somehow come back to life you better start believing that god exists.
But maybe what really matters is knowing THE TRUTH. Maybe consequences are overrated. The only thing that matters is THE TRUTH. Personally I don't bother myself with that because it's the same as believing in god. It has no weight on my every day life. Is that a wrong way to live? I don't know. So far I'm living a fine life.