TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- creation vs. evolution
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

creation vs. evolution

as per request of artic im starting a thread here in the political discussion forum I started this thread so um the other thread we were debating in wouldnt close down...ok basic intelligent debate...I post in a forum about main theology if you want to take a real serious debate route they have special debate rooms with special rules for intelligent debate..

now to adress your post ...

quote:

Granted - which is good, because there's multitudes of evidence to back evolution up. www.talkorigins.org should help explain what evolution is if you're interested.

I know what evolution is I am not stupid

quote:

Christ, not AiG again.

Id prefer if you dont curse during this debate please...but I knew the minute I posted that you would probably dissaprove my source I have plenty of others I can use if needed.

quote:

Creationism isn't falsifiable. Creationism isn't testable. Creationism doesn't even have a hypothesis. Thus, creationism isn't science. Again, most creationists have got their degrees from so called 'degree mill' institutions. Most of them actually aren't scientists at all. The small amount that are have never actually published one paper in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Once again, 99% of biologists are evolutionists - it simply isn't possible to do any real research if you're a young earth creationists - nothing makes sense.

well show me the proof that %99 of biologists being evolutionists and I contest to the fact it does make sense just not from a evolutional stand point. And for the part about creationism not having a hyphothesis ..it does several...YEC..OEC..many more...

quote:

That article not only grossly misrepresents evolution - but it's also trying to back away from the whole 'facts issue'. It's typical creationist rhetoric - "Now, these facts, this evidence, it really doesn't exist - what actually happens, is we interpret these fact differently". Sorry, but that's BS - plain and simple. The facts point to an old earth, there's no getting around that. When creationists come up with a scientific theory, get back to me.

Again facts are all about interpretation and misinterpretation either way such facts as carbon dating have been dissaproved..do you know that carbon dating only works to about 6000 years ago and any difference in radiation caused by magnetic changes eathqaukes, natural disasters etc... change the timing?

quote:

At best that's ill-informed, and at worst it's a blatant and unashamed lie. There are very few scientists who are also creationists - and actually have any relevant qualifications in the field. creationism isn't science - it's an obscure religious belief that isn't backed up by the facts.

what is not science is evolution...for something to be science it has to be able to be observed and we have never observed something evolve...we have observed things being created thought....

ok Ill back up some of this with sources as you asked later but right now im kind of busy so that all I could write up for now...eagerly waiting your response..

This is quite possibly the worst ID thread ever. I couldn't even understand half of what this guy's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut This is quite possibly the worst ID thread ever. I couldn't even understand half of what this guy's talking about.

Tell me bout it mate, never seen such a blatent case of fallacy ave ya?!

I believe evolution was created.

artic, we will kill you

my bet is 8+

you better read this thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=156468

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Tell me bout it mate, never seen such a blatent case of fallacy ave ya?!

Awe! HUGS ALL AROUND!

(seriously- what was he talking about?)

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew artic, we will kill you

Haha, I've unleashed him on you.

Actually, to be perfectly honest, I thought that MisterOpus could do all my work for me, but alas, he's offline at the moment.

quote:

you better read this thread: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=156468

I participated in that thread.

Now for some creationist bashing - the sport of kings.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Haha, I've unleashed him on you. Actually, to be perfectly honest, I thought tat MisterOpus could do all my work for me, but alas, he's offline at the moment. I participated in that thread. Now for some creationist bashing - the sport of kings.

Eh- Whatever you write- change some adjectives and verbs and throw my name at the end of it for me. tks

Re: creation vs. evolution

quote:

Originally posted by Electronicmaji as per request of artic im starting a thread here in the political discussion forum I started this thread so um the other thread we were debating in wouldnt close down...ok basic intelligent debate...I post in a forum about main theology if you want to take a real serious debate route they have special debate rooms with special rules for intelligent debate..

I assure you, we're quite capable of having an intelligent debate here, more than you seem to realize.

quote:

Id prefer if you dont curse during this debate please...but I knew the minute I posted that you would probably dissaprove my source I have plenty of others I can use if needed.

Maybe because your source attempts to circumnavigate the issue and equalize biblical verses with hard evidence?

quote:

well show me the proof that %99 of biologists being evolutionists and I contest to the fact it does make sense just not from a evolutional stand point. And for the part about creationism not having a hyphothesis ..it does several...YEC..OEC..many more...

Maybe the fact that there hasn't been a serious paper on creationism written in the last 50 years is proof enough? I haven't found any percentages in a quick google search, except that 45% of the americans still believe in creationism. That figure should be cut at least ten fold if we consider scientists only and again if we narrow ourselves to biologists. Now considering that the US scientific population hardly makes more than 10% of the global population, as well as that creationism is not an issue in any country with a reasonable amount of scientists except the US, we can easily conclude that your percentages are way more mistaken than arctic's.

quote:

Again facts are all about interpretation and misinterpretation either way such facts as carbon dating have been dissaproved..do you know that carbon dating only works to about 6000 years ago and any difference in radiation caused by magnetic changes eathqaukes, natural disasters etc... change the timing?

Yes, and you're clearly the one who's misinterpreting the facts. Carbon 14 has a half-life of 6000 years, meaning that 1/2 of it will decay in 6000 years. But if you go back in time for 6000 more years, 1/2 of that 1/2 will decay, and you'll have only 1/4 of carbon left. So you're totally missed the notion of half life. It can be used indefinitely. Natural disasters, earthquakes, and magnetic changes do not interact with half life timing. The only thing that interacts is exposure to high energy particles. Do you even know how carbon dating works? High energy particles, mainly cosmic rays, create C14 in the upper portions of the atmosphere, which then spreads evenly through it. When living beings inhale C14, it gets stored in their organisms. Once they stop breathing, C14 stops accumulating and starts decaying. Every 6000 years, the amount of C14 in their bodies is decreased by 1/2.

quote:

what is not science is evolution...for something to be science it has to be able to be observed and we have never observed something evolve...we have observed things being created thought....

Actually, we have observed several cases of evolution. Nylon eating bacteria, darkened moths in english industrial cities, worms populations who became unable to interbreed after a short but controlled separation.

On the other hand, I'd really like you to say what we have seen has been created out of nothing by some sort of a divine intervention.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic I participated in that thread.

yeah i know, it was aimed to the starter of this thread =)

Re: creation vs. evolution

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yeah i know, it was aimed to the starter of this thread =)

Chances of him actaually bothering to read it - one in a million.

quote:

Originally posted by Electronicmaji as per request of artic im starting a thread here in the political discussion forum I started this thread so um the other thread we were debating in wouldnt close down...ok basic intelligent debate...I post in a forum about main theology if you want to take a real serious debate route they have special debate rooms with special rules for intelligent debate..

I like coherence. Do you like coherence?

quote:

now to adress your post ...

This will be good.

quote:

I know what evolution is I am not stupid

Debatable.

quote:

Id prefer if you dont curse during this debate please...but I knew the minute I posted that you would probably dissaprove my source I have plenty of others I can use if needed.

JESUS H. FUCKING CHRIST - how's that?

Good to hear that you've got some sources - how about actually presenting them instead of merely stating that you have them?

quote:

well show me the proof that %99 of biologists being evolutionists and I contest to the fact it does make sense just not from a evolutional stand point. And for the part about creationism not having a hyphothesis ..it does several...YEC..OEC..many more...

You were the one who claimed that most respected, elder scientists were creationists - the burden of proof is upon you. Back up what you said.

Oh yes, you might also like to try and make sense now and then - that often helps.

Creationists don't have a testable & falsifiable theory - again, they simply don't have one, period. Please link me to a creationist site where they present a scientific theory that can be tested and falsified.

quote:

Again facts are all about interpretation and misinterpretation either way such facts as carbon dating have been dissaproved..do you know that carbon dating only works to about 6000 years ago and any difference in radiation caused by magnetic changes eathqaukes, natural disasters etc... change the timing?

Bzzzzzzt. Wrong. Facts are facts. In this case - the facts point to evolution.

Here's an example of these facts that (according to you at least) apparently are up for interpretation - leading one to believe that creationism is true.



Yep! Looks like it supports YEC 100%.

As for the carbon dating argument, read the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay...rbon.html#noway
http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/gl...ef_carbon14.htm

quote:

what is not science is evolution...for something to be science it has to be able to be observed and we have never observed something evolve...we have observed things being created thought....

Evolution is science - whether you like it or not: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

We have empirical evidence (the fossil record and so on) of evolution occurring.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

quote:

ok Ill back up some of this with sources as you asked later but right now im kind of busy so that all I could write up for now...eagerly waiting your response..

"The case of the disappearing sources."

Ugh, coherence -1. Sorry for the ad hominems - but this twit has been spamming and derailing threads in chillout all day. Now, where on earth are occ & MisterOpus?

Re: Re: creation vs. evolution

quote:

Originally posted by arctic JESUS H. FUCKING CHRIST - how's that?

I've always wondered what the "H" Stood for? Hernandez?
Insight Please- tks

Re: Re: Re: creation vs. evolution

quote:

Originally posted by xKaoSx I've always wondered what the "H" Stood for? Hernandez? Insight Please- tks

http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-jes1.htm

Re: creation vs. evolution

Argghh, I had a meeting and Drug_Tito stole some thunder. But I'll give a little more info.....

Before I start, Electronicmaji, I must say that judging by a number of your posts in the past in the COR, you have a propensity of talking out of your ass, to put it mildly. I tend to find that this particular subject you bring to us here in the Political Forum is no different, though I would be quite relieved to be proven wrong.

That may not be the most polite way to start things off, but I sincerely had to get that off my chest. Now, as much as I can make out of your points, let's address them one at a time:

quote:

Originally posted by Electronicmaji Id prefer if you dont curse during this debate please...but I knew the minute I posted that you would probably dissaprove my source I have plenty of others I can use if needed.

I'm unaware and not too terribly concerned with what you posted earlier, so perhaps you can post your source here with your specific questions and/or assertions I can address them accordingly.

quote:

well show me the proof that %99 of biologists being evolutionists and I contest to the fact it does make sense just not from a evolutional stand point.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%"

So to be precise, it's about 99.86% of scientists. Granted, this is a little dated, so I think it may be appropriate to perhaps shift those numbers a little more. And I'll even be nice and shift those numbers towards the Creationists (though I haven't seen any evidence to do so, I'll play nice), and give the Creo side an extra 50. I believe we're still over 99%, however.

Now the public opinion is not congruent to scientific opinion. In fact, public opinion gives more of a balanced view between the two. However, since we are referring to a scientific phenomenon, and not a public phenomenon, I tend to give more weight towards the opinion of scientists.

quote:

And for the part about creationism not having a hyphothesis ..it does several...YEC..OEC..many more...

Oh sure, anyone can create a hypothesis. That part of the equation is not difficult at all. Here's an example:

"I hypothesize that you are talking out of your ass."

The hard part, however, is making observations and having evidence to either support or refute such hypothesis. I'm sure we'll see where it goes for my personal hypothesis, but as for the Creationist hypothesis', this is where their given well runs dry. They have yet to show any credible, positive, observed, tested, retested, and falsified hypothesis. Fortunately for evolutionists and other scientists for that matter, they have met the above criterion for their given hypothesis, which gives their version of the story a great deal more weight.

Furthermore, it would be helpful to even have a working hypothesis to begin with. Specifically, one that has been created from previously supported observation, evidence, and other studies. This is, in essence, how scientists perform the bulk of their work - the vast majority of it is based upon previous research.

Once again, Creationists are quite absent in this particular instance.

quote:

Again facts are all about interpretation and misinterpretation either way such facts as carbon dating have been dissaproved..do you know that carbon dating only works to about 6000 years ago and any difference in radiation caused by magnetic changes eathqaukes, natural disasters etc... change the timing?

I believe Drug_Tito touched on this quite nicely. I am curious as to what your interpretation is on Carbon 14 dating. Perhaps if you can clarify your position a little better with a little better understanding, we can go from there.

quote:

what is not science is evolution...for something to be science it has to be able to be observed and we have never observed something evolve...

As Drug_Tito explained, we have observed evolution quite easily, even on a small time scale of a few decades. Actually, we can observe evolution in a smaller timescale than that - ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

quote:

we have observed things being created thought....

Umm, not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying we have observed "thought"? What does that have to do with anything? Please clarify this statement.

quote:

ok Ill back up some of this with sources as you asked later but right now im kind of busy so that all I could write up for now...eagerly waiting your response..

I eagerly await your response with sources. But I would especially appreciate you specifically addressing what we've discussed so far before you bring up anything further. Just a thought on debate courtesy, so we can have nice flow of discussion here.

Re: Re: creation vs. evolution

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Ugh, coherence -1. Sorry for the ad hominems - but this twit has been spamming and derailing threads in chillout all day. Now, where on earth are occ & MisterOpus?

I dunno ... it's too easy . I mean, he doesn't even understand the principles behind carbon dating. Maybe when his knowledgable "friends" come along to "kick it up a notch" I'll gleefully join the frey .

The problem is, is that there are too many smart evolutionists, and not enough silly fundies to go around

/me grabs some popcorn and waits for nelly, Electronicmaji and hopefully some other fundies

From the other thread:

quote:

sorry there is evidence for creationism but considering the close mindedness of your last post I really dont think posting the evidence will change your mind so I leave you and your ignorance alone in this thread

Hmmm where have I heard this before? Debate 101 must be a mandatory class at Patriot U.

Re: Re: Re: creation vs. evolution

MisterOpus - about time you got here. I could have used your help earlier on in chillout.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I dunno ... it's too easy . I mean, he doesn't even understand the principles behind carbon dating. Maybe when his knowledgable "friends" come along to "kick it up a notch" I'll gleefully join the frey . The problem is, is that there are too many smart evolutionists, and not enough silly fundies to go around

Aye - finding fundies is always hard. I thought i had cracked the jackpot at http://www.rr-bb.com/ - but sadly they ban atheists as soon as they say anything remotely negative about creationism, Israel, southern Baptists or the religious right.

Christianforums.com has it's fair share of them as well, but they get utterly decimated by the band of atheists, agnostics, Buddhists and deists, the work is always done by the time I get there. Where can one find a good fundie store these days?

DrUg_Tit0 should be pleased that I gave him a fundie for his birthday - they're hard to come by!

St_Andrew - don't despair, Heinz might drop in for a visit. Unfortunately Meelch (sp) has refrained from posting in the religious threads under his new username - maybe he dislikes getting banned. Meh, we need more fundies.

lmao @ this thread. you guys could eat fundies for breakfast. i should come in the politics forum more often...

Re: Re: Re: Re: creation vs. evolution

quote:

Originally posted by arctic MisterOpus - about time you got here. I could have used your help earlier on in chillout.

Cripes, man, you think I'd be able to find this subject in the thread about Janet Jackson's boob? Talk about finding a needle in the haystack!

Besides, I just can't read all the COR threads anymore. I dunno, maybe I'm gettin' too old or somethin', but the majority of the COR threads aren't quite my cup of tea anymore. Nothing against the regulars there, mind you. But I just don't post much rambling there anymore.

Oh well. Here I be.

sight I made this thread for a serious intelligent one on one debate with mr. artic now that you have seemed to not understand and therefore others have debated me in this thread.....I invite mr. artic to join these forums www.theologyweb.com and make a one on one challenge to me...if you are afraid of loosing to me I understand

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: creation vs. evolution

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Cripes, man, you think I'd be able to find this subject in the thread about Janet Jackson's boob? Talk about finding a needle in the haystack! Besides, I just can't read all the COR threads anymore. I dunno, maybe I'm gettin' too old or somethin', but the majority of the COR threads aren't quite my cup of tea anymore. Nothing against the regulars there, mind you. But I just don't post much rambling there anymore. Oh well. Here I be.

Yes .... [pats polit forum] ... home sweet home.

quote:

Originally posted by Electronicmaji sight I made this thread for a serious intelligent one on one debate with mr. artic now that you have seemed to not understand and therefore others have debated me in this thread.....I invite mr. artic to join these forums www.theologyweb.com and make a one on one challenge to me...if you are afraid of loosing to me I understand

Why don't you simply respond to the arguments he raised here?

Edit: Specially since when I tried to access that forum my computer slowed down exponentially and internet explorer crashed.

Why is it not possible that creation created evolution?

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Why is it not possible that creation created evolution?

It's entirely possible. However, that is a philosophical discussion ... here we have someone attempting to debunk the scientific validity of the theory of evolution.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.