TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Creation vs Evolution
Pages (16): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 »

Creation vs Evolution

Just wanted to move this discussion out of the other thread.

This is mainly directed at my new buddies Opus and occrider - but anyone that wishes to, please join in on our debate.

Please keep it civil and respectful - many people do care about this topic and like me, they enjoy discussing it and learning how other people think.

Without further ado... I have a few questions!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Opus, I respect your outlook that science and religion should not be together. I hope this question doesn't infringe that!

As "evolutionists" - or someone that believes the earth is older than 6,000 years - What would you say the "strongest" proof for this is? Scientifically, of course.

Counterpoint - among my limited "creation" research throughout my life, I've learned that the oldest reef is about 4300 years old and the oldest tree on earth is about 4200 years old. Do you believe this is just a coincidence or actual evidence of a "pro-flood" theory?

Looking forward to hearing from you guys - Cheers!

Occrider, I've been researching some articles and theories regarding "radioactive isotope dating" which you illustrated to me the other day.

I was wondering what you thought about these two statements regarding it:

quote:

This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating. First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be. Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.

Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Just wanted to move this discussion out of the other thread. This is mainly directed at my new buddies Opus and occrider - but anyone that wishes to, please join in on our debate. Please keep it civil and respectful - many people do care about this topic and like me, they enjoy discussing it and learning how other people think. Without further ado... I have a few questions! ------------------------------------------------------------------- Opus, I respect your outlook that science and religion should not be together. I hope this question doesn't infringe that! As "evolutionists" - or someone that believes the earth is older than 6,000 years - What would you say the "strongest" proof for this is? Scientifically, of course.

Name a scientific field of study - evolutionary biology, cell and molecular biology, paleontology, ecology, marine biology, genetics, astrophysics, geology, geography, etc. etc.

I can think of not one field that could holds evidence that points toward a "young earth". I think the burden is not on science, but on the young earth creationist (YEC) to demonstrate a young earth.

Keep in mind that it was creationists over 150 yrs. ago that shot down the idea of a young earth - once they realized that flood theory was bogus.

quote:

Counterpoint - among my limited "creation" research throughout my life, I've learned that the oldest reef is about 4300 years old and the oldest tree on earth is about 4200 years old. Do you believe this is just a coincidence or actual evidence of a "pro-flood" theory?

When reading Hovind's arguments like this, you really must ask yourself: how does the age of a particular object "prove" anything about the age of the earth in general? How does that particular object relate at all to the age of the earth?

Answer: it says nothing whatsoever about the age of the earth. Furthermore, a number coral reefs are much, much older than a few thousand years.

Look, you're taking arguments right out of Hovind's playbook. Rather than you ask them one at a time, I suggest you read these well-written refutations of Hovind's ridiculous arguments:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hov...wgood-yea2.html

Every single YEC argument I've run across only demonstrates a sincere lack of knowledge about evolutionary processes. In no way am I trying to knock your intelligence, but I will tell you that YEC folks have either deliberately misled or blatantly ignored based scientific tenets altogether. They are truly a dying breed, simply because their arguments have moved from the "shaky ground" arena into the flat-out ridiculous stage.

It is this reason why most creationists have abandoned these YEC arguments and moved towards questionable areas like Intelligent Design. The logic, however, is no less flawed in this arena once it's broken down, but it holds more support for those desperately wanting to cling on to the "goddidit!" line for everything.

I would highly suggest that you learn a bit more about evolutionary processes on your own, if you are truly interested. You will find that a little bit of reading and cognitive questioning will answer/debunk many of those creationist questions you may have. One site that may be of interest to you is this one:

http://www.talkorigins.org

HTH,

Opus1

Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Look, you're taking arguments right out of Hovind's playbook. Rather than you ask them one at a time, I suggest you read these well-written refutations of Hovind's ridiculous arguments: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hov...wgood-yea2.html

I didn't know that was out of his "playbook" - I've seen a couple of his seminars (on video) - but I haven't seen all of him. The issue was brought up in one of my classes. (Philosophical Theology)

From what I've read (and heard about him) he's a bit out there sometimes on his theories. I'll try to refrain from quoting him ever again.

quote:

Every single YEC argument I've run across only demonstrates a sincere lack of knowledge about evolutionary processes. In no way am I trying to knock your intelligence, but I will tell you that YEC folks have either deliberately misled or blatantly ignored based scientific tenets altogether. They are truly a dying breed, simply because their arguments have moved from the "shaky ground" arena into the flat-out ridiculous stage.

I do thank you for not calling me an idiot

You tell me to go read something. I've been to every major pro-creation and pro-evolution site there is. I am quite well versed on most of the evolution and creation theories. Stating that: Would you agree with the following statement?:

"The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

I am not here to discuss many things that much smarter people than me have already discussed in *great* length.

What I am trying to do is find out what other people think, why they think it - and - see if it is I who in fact is naive, or do people really turn a blind eye to looking at the "facts" with a different perspective. No offense, but I do see that here. I have looked at the world as you would (or similiar) - and I've looked at it how I do now. Can you say that you've looked at the world from a creationists point of view?

quote:

They are truly a dying breed, simply because their arguments have moved from the "shaky ground" arena into the flat-out ridiculous stage.

I wouldn't call them ridiculous by any means. However, I think most "creationists" consider the thought of evolution just as flat-out ridiculous. One group has to be wrong, don't they? Meaning a lot of people on this world are pretty crazy.

quote:

It is this reason why most creationists have abandoned these YEC arguments and moved towards questionable areas like Intelligent Design. The logic, however, is no less flawed in this arena once it's broken down, but it holds more support for those desperately wanting to cling on to the "goddidit!" line for everything.

I wasn't aware "most" creationists have abandoned all our beliefs. I am aware of the Intelligent Design theory, and I do like it - however - I also hate using the cop out "Goddidit!" for as much as possible. It's the eternal "we're right" answer, but I have to think there was meaning and logic (even in a divine sense) of everything that is today.

So, respectfully, I do appreciate your thinking of me and offering me many links to read (which I did) - and I'm not flat out ignoring their "debunking" - but you will have to forgive me for looking at everything with a different presuppositions.

What about Uranium-Lead dating?

quote:

When reading Hovind's arguments like this, you really must ask yourself: how does the age of a particular object "prove" anything about the age of the earth in general? How does that particular object relate at all to the age of the earth? Answer: it says nothing whatsoever about the age of the earth. Furthermore, a number coral reefs are much, much older than a few thousand years.

and a rock thats dated falsely doesnt mean anything whatsoever about the age of the earth.

---------

what kind of climactic events would happen if there was a world-wide flood of such huge proportions that the entire earth was covered. thats how i think one Ice Age could have come about. but not 5.

the so-called Missing Link "Lucy" was actually animal bones scattered about that were found in africa.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Occrider, I've been researching some articles and theories regarding "radioactive isotope dating" which you illustrated to me the other day. I was wondering what you thought about these two statements regarding it: This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating. First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be. Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.

Nearly every college library in the country have a database of periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals that give the results of dating studies. Over a thousand research papers are published a year on radiometric dating, essentially all in agreement. In the event that a result does not match, they don't simply throw it away and shrug their shoulders until they get a value they want, they research the reason WHY there is a discrepancy in the date. Therefore, contamination errors as in the case of Potassium-Argon dating, or the dating of sea mollusks are scientifically researched and disseminated to other scientists so they know to avoid making a similar contamination error. Once again, scientists employ not one but SEVERAL dating methods on the same object and the results are consistent among all methods. If radio-dating was flawed, we would see discrepancies all the time. But look up some results yourself ...

i heard 'Lucy' was a highly evolved creationist?

Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil "The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

I'm afraid you're going to have to be a little bit more specific with respect to this argument. Saying that the reason why facts are interpreted differentely between creationists and evolutionists is because they enter the argument with different presuppositions is somewhat like saying "humans are inherentely biased, therefore there are no such things as facts because arguments put forth as facts by humans are inherentely biased." Now that's clearly false unless you are are attempting to discuss such a thing philosophically. Therefore one must provide examples of such instances that can be proven or disproven. But to the best of my knowledge, no instance of such a thing (that hasn't been responded to) exists.

Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil As "evolutionists" - or someone that believes the earth is older than 6,000 years - What would you say the "strongest" proof for this is? Scientifically, of course. Counterpoint - among my limited "creation" research throughout my life, I've learned that the oldest reef is about 4300 years old and the oldest tree on earth is about 4200 years old. Do you believe this is just a coincidence or actual evidence of a "pro-flood" theory? Looking forward to hearing from you guys - Cheers!

You seem to be focusing on the age of the Earth, as opposed to the age of the entire universe. If it is just the Earth that you are talking about, then as has been mentioned, radiometric dating is the strongest evidence for an old Earth. But if you think that the whole universe was created in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago, then there is the equally damning evidence of visible light from distant galaxies.

See, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, then we should only be able to see light from stars that are 6,000 light years away. But we don't. Back in 1987, scientists witnessed a star going supernova; it exploded and now doesn't exist. This star was over a 170,000 light years away. That means the star actually exploded 170,000 years ago, and it took the light that long to get here. But if the universe is only several thousand years old, then that star never existed and the supernova never actually happened. Basically, the star and explosion would just be an illusion created by God.. light portraying an event that never actually happened.


richard

Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by devonian rabbit You seem to be focusing on the age of the Earth, as opposed to the age of the entire universe. If it is just the Earth that you are talking about, then as has been mentioned, radiometric dating is the strongest evidence for an old Earth. But if you think that the whole universe was created in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago, then there is the equally damning evidence of visible light from distant galaxies. See, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, then we should only be able to see light from stars that are 6,000 light years away. But we don't. Back in 1987, scientists witnessed a star going supernova; it exploded and now doesn't exist. This star was over a 170,000 light years away. That means the star actually exploded 170,000 years ago, and it took the light that long to get here. But if the universe is only several thousand years old, then that star never existed and the supernova never actually happened. Basically, the star and explosion would just be an illusion created by God.. light portraying an event that never actually happened. richard

Whilst we're on the topic of space ...

quote:

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes [Nomoto et al. 1997; Thielemann et al. 1998]. These isotopes produce gamma rays whose frequencies and fading rates are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light years away [Knodlseder 2000]. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is 60 million light years away [Prantzos 1999], and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light years away [Perlmutter et al. 1998].

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: and a rock thats dated falsely doesnt mean anything whatsoever about the age of the earth.

The correlation of dating methods, which is applied today, eliminates these errors greatly. The probability of error through correlation is virtually nill.

Here's a great article on dating methodology and those typical creationist arguments against them:

http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/rad_dat.html#Error

---------

quote:

what kind of climactic events would happen if there was a world-wide flood of such huge proportions that the entire earth was covered. thats how i think one Ice Age could have come about. but not 5.

This is a confusing statement. Please clarify.

quote:

the so-called Missing Link "Lucy" was actually animal bones scattered about that were found in africa.

Oh yeah, I've heard this one a dozen times too. Why are these arguments so incredibly dated? (that's a rhetorical question, btw).

There have been two primary arguments against the Lucy discovery. The first is that Lucy's knee joint was found so far away from the rest of her other remains. That might sound appealing, if it was actually her knee joint:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

The second creationist argument is that Australopithecines was more apelike and not bipedal. Unfortunately this is an old argument from the 1950's that was easily discounted, but unfortunately gets regurgitated by some creationists over and over. Again, obvious distortions, misrepresentations, quote minings, and a plain lack of knowledge or understanding of paleontology:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

Methinks this thread is not going to last much longer unless it attracts a true fundie.

Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I didn't know that was out of his "playbook" - I've seen a couple of his seminars (on video) - but I haven't seen all of him. The issue was brought up in one of my classes. (Philosophical Theology) From what I've read (and heard about him) he's a bit out there sometimes on his theories. I'll try to refrain from quoting him ever again.

What was the context of the issue brought up, just out of curiousity? Were these debunked arguments brought up by the teacher/professor as sound arguments, or was it just an open discussion with class members talking about both sides of the argument? If, by chance, it was the former, I must say even in a Philosophical Theology class (where these types of questions should remain) would be kinda frightening.

quote:

I do thank you for not calling me an idiot

You bet.

quote:

You tell me to go read something. I've been to every major pro-creation and pro-evolution site there is. I am quite well versed on most of the evolution and creation theories. Stating that: Would you agree with the following statement?: "The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

Oh boy, quoting Ken Ham is pretty dangerous as well:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

Among some of his famous claims, evolution gives the world an excuse for Racism, Abortion, Euthanasia, Drugs, and Nazism. Never mind that evolution gives no ground or concern for ethical issues or moral principles (it�s like asking why germ theory gives rise to Satan), what�s sad is he has absolutely no basis to support such outlandish assertions. Unfortunately, he has a propensity for taking quotes out of context (i.e. quote mining):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html

Again, I mean no disrespect to you, but I must reiterate that it�s apparent that you do not understand evolution very well. I say this because the evidence we see for evolution is not subject to interpretation. But more to the point, when pressed with specifics on �interpreting the facts� (btw, there are no facts, just evidence that either supports or weakens an assertion), Ken�s arguments are reduced to ridicule.

To prove my point, let�s apply Ken�s statement to a simple experiment that anyone can do. The supplies are relatively cheap, and anyone can have access to them. Here you go:

Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.

But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.

How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.

But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.

Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.

But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.

But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically.

If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.

Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type?

No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria.

We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.

So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.

There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.

You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

So if we can see evolution happen right before our eyes, how can it be subjected to a different interpretation? What else could Ken Ham propose happened?

quote:

I am not here to discuss many things that much smarter people than me have already discussed in *great* length.

I�m sorry, but without discussing specifics, no real point can be made. We can discuss in generalities all day, but that�s hardly convincing.

quote:

What I am trying to do is find out what other people think, why they think it - and - see if it is I who in fact is naive, or do people really turn a blind eye to looking at the "facts" with a different perspective. No offense, but I do see that here.

None taken, however you�ve continually asked me to look at �facts� with a different perspective. What you may not understand is I most certainly have the majority of my life. I was a pretty hardcore Christian who believed in literal interpretation and creation story until the age of 19. But when I was confronted with obvious corroborating evidence that clearly supported the contrary, it was a pretty quick change.

You�re asking me to accept a different perspective � if that perspective has anything to do with a presupposition of a Biblical account, you�re argument is in error. Firstly, historical Biblical record is anything but accurate. Secondly, examining the Bible with a scientific perspective is extremely dangerous at best.

But what�s more, attempting to compare a creationist notion that already holds a conclusion to the basic tenet of science, methodological naturalism, which holds no conclusions before weighing evidence, is downright laughable to me. How could you expect me to take something seriously that already assumes a conclusion, and then attempts to �fit� evidence to support that conclusion?

On the contrary, methodological naturalism, the scientific philosophy from which the scientific method was derived, starts with basic observation without immediately reaching a conclusion. It then seeks for either more observation or data collection to see whether or not the initial question (hypothesis) was correct or not. Often times the hypothesis is correct, but just as often it is not. It was these methods that clearly separated historical myths such as Satan�s demons killing individuals verses a disease spread through rat feces (Bubonic plague, btw).

So creationism wants to play the same game and work with the same tenets as science? Fine, give me some examples and let�s ask the same questions and make hypotheticals. Let�s see how far we get.

BTW, I�ll cut to the chase and ask you this � can you name me one creationist discovery or research paper that has advanced science forward in any way?

quote:

I have looked at the world as you would (or similiar) - and I've looked at it how I do now. Can you say that you've looked at the world from a creationists point of view?

Most assuredly. I answered that above. And no, I am completely unconvinced you have come remotely close to looking at the world as I have or even remotely similar to my views. For you to continue to attempt to intermingle science with matters of faith and the supernatural is a dead giveaway here.

quote:

I wouldn't call them ridiculous by any means. However, I think most "creationists" consider the thought of evolution just as flat-out ridiculous. One group has to be wrong, don't they? Meaning a lot of people on this world are pretty crazy.

Define a lot? True creationists are few and far between. Have you also noticed that creationists tend to stick to a strict Christian perspective of life? Coincidence?

You�re trying to argue that a Christian perspective should be weighed just as equally as a scientific perspective of the history of life on earth. I�m sorry but the Christian perspective is not unique. Have you not considered the Buddhist perspective? How about the Hindu? Hare Krishna? Why have you so easily discounted their perspectives, and just come down to only 2 left?

Even if I were to take all these belief systems into account, why would I possibly weigh a belief system that has absolutely no evidence to support it over a scientific theory that has an overwhelming amount of corroborating data from a multitude of different sciences?

Show me evidence that your belief system is valid, and I will be happy to consider it. Deal?

quote:

I wasn't aware "most" creationists have abandoned all our beliefs. I am aware of the Intelligent Design theory, and I do like it - however - I also hate using the cop out "Goddidit!" for as much as possible.

Do you not realize that this is the creationist answer for everything, regardless of which �branch� of creationism you are referring to here?

quote:

It's the eternal "we're right" answer, but I have to think there was meaning and logic (even in a divine sense) of everything that is today.

What�s a �divine sense� of logic?

quote:

So, respectfully, I do appreciate your thinking of me and offering me many links to read (which I did) - and I'm not flat out ignoring their "debunking" - but you will have to forgive me for looking at everything with a different presuppositions.

Are you honestly telling me this with a straight face? What on earth is creationism then without the presupposition that God created everything in 6 days, and that the earth is a merely 6 thousand or so yrs. old?

Define the presuppositions for evolutionary theory, please. I have yet to see them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

Sorry for the delay - I had a day off yesterday. No internet for me unless I'm at work!

I feel a samurai fighting against a lot of guys with guns.

Answering my questions in backward order - Good replies fellas, I like when people make me think.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What was the context of the issue brought up, just out of curiousity? Were these debunked arguments brought up by the teacher/professor as sound arguments, or was it just an open discussion with class members talking about both sides of the argument? If, by chance, it was the former, I must say even in a Philosophical Theology class (where these types of questions should remain) would be kinda frightening.

It was the latter, thankfully. I was just looking for your point of view on those facts - I, even as a "creationist" - thought that even though the ages of the coral/tree might be around that age, I didn't see it as "evidence" to support a young-earth - since it could be ruled coincidence and whatnot. I do find it interesting, however.

quote:

Oh boy, quoting Ken Ham is pretty dangerous as well: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp Among some of his famous claims, evolution gives the world an excuse for Racism, Abortion, Euthanasia, Drugs, and Nazism. Never mind that evolution gives no ground or concern for ethical issues or moral principles (it�s like asking why germ theory gives rise to Satan), what�s sad is he has absolutely no basis to support such outlandish assertions. Unfortunately, he has a propensity for taking quotes out of context (i.e. quote mining): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html Again, I mean no disrespect to you, but I must reiterate that it�s apparent that you do not understand evolution very well. I say this because the evidence we see for evolution is not subject to interpretation. But more to the point, when pressed with specifics on �interpreting the facts� (btw, there are no facts, just evidence that either supports or weakens an assertion), Ken�s arguments are reduced to ridicule.

I did quote him. I believe the quote I quoted is a good quote, and quite quotable. - However, just because I quote someone does not mean I believe in everything they have ever said.

I do thank you for putting the image of green grass in my head, though.

quote:

Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type?

You consider developing an immunity/resistance to something "evolving"? I am just curious. Or do you consider this a "mutation-selection mechanism? Purely random mutations in the DNA create new types of organisms, and those organisms which are better at surviving and reproducing tend to leave more offspring.

I was taught in biology class this was called a "variation" or "speciation". I do agree it's fascinating - and in my college biology classes (which were very pro-evolution) - all the "evidences" they taught us to support an ever-evolving biological ecosystem was more like variations within the species.

Quoting:
Speciation is simply a term evolutionary biologists use to describe the processes by which new species evolve in the wild--though it is often equated with "macroevolution". However, when evolutionists claim evidence for "speciation", they have often only witnessed trivial microevolutionary changes in two very similar populations.

quote:

No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria.

Sounds like "survival of the fittest" scenario. Your reasoning makes perfect sense.

Quoting:
"Natural selection is a fact, but all it really means is non-random death. In fact, it is a mere mathematical certainty given variation in a species and "selection pressure" fromthe environment. But before natural selection can become important, there first must be variation upon which selection can act. The problem for evolution lies in the mutation-selection mechanism, where random mutations--the ultimate originator of all variation--must somehow account for the origin of the vast and often irreducible complexity (mentioned above) of life on earth. Natural selection would still give us no answer to answer to the question "how did the different shades of moths originate in the first place?"

quote:

So if we can see evolution happen right before our eyes, how can it be subjected to a different interpretation? What else could Ken Ham propose happened?

I'm no Ken Ham expert - what exactly is his argument against the fact that something adapts to it's environment?

quote:

None taken, however you�ve continually asked me to look at �facts� with a different perspective. What you may not understand is I most certainly have the majority of my life. I was a pretty hardcore Christian who believed in literal interpretation and creation story until the age of 19. But when I was confronted with obvious corroborating evidence that clearly supported the contrary, it was a pretty quick change.

Our lives mirror each other - I was a hardcore atheist until about 22.

quote:

You�re asking me to accept a different perspective � if that perspective has anything to do with a presupposition of a Biblical account, you�re argument is in error. Firstly, historical Biblical record is anything but accurate.

The "inaccuracies" in the Bible, to me, are humorous. Every single one is on some word technicality - like in Acts when he describes what should be "past" events when indeed they are probably in the future and things like that.

Name a particular instance in the bible where the "inaccuracy" is blatant and irrefutable.

quote:

Secondly, examining the Bible with a scientific perspective is extremely dangerous at best.

To you, perhaps. However, to someone like me - who's faith in God will never weaken - is it really dangerous? I'm not trying to pollute the masses of "intelligent" people with my crazy "creationist ideas", am I? -- I pursue these questions for inner-enlightenment and self-growth. That, and I like hearing every side to the story.

quote:

But what�s more, attempting to compare a creationist notion that already holds a conclusion to the basic tenet of science, methodological naturalism, which holds no conclusions before weighing evidence, is downright laughable to me. How could you expect me to take something seriously that already assumes a conclusion, and then attempts to �fit� evidence to support that conclusion? On the contrary, methodological naturalism, the scientific philosophy from which the scientific method was derived, starts with basic observation without immediately reaching a conclusion. It then seeks for either more observation or data collection to see whether or not the initial question (hypothesis) was correct or not. Often times the hypothesis is correct, but just as often it is not. It was these methods that clearly separated historical myths such as Satan�s demons killing individuals verses a disease spread through rat feces (Bubonic plague, btw). [quote] Interesting statement. If only God's wrath was still carried out by raining sulfur and destroying first-borns. Then we could discuss the science of that. Point taken, however. [quote] So creationism wants to play the same game and work with the same tenets as science? Fine, give me some examples and let�s ask the same questions and make hypotheticals. Let�s see how far we get.

More on this later.

quote:

BTW, I�ll cut to the chase and ask you this � can you name me one creationist discovery or research paper that has advanced science forward in any way?

I was not aware that all scientific discoveries were made in the name of evolution.

On an ironic note, all of modern science originated from a medieval-Christian mindset. St. Thomas paved the way for thinkers like Newton and Einstein.

quote:

Most assuredly. I answered that above. And no, I am completely unconvinced you have come remotely close to looking at the world as I have or even remotely similar to my views. For you to continue to attempt to intermingle science with matters of faith and the supernatural is a dead giveaway here.

While I do see your logic here - and an image of televangelists with lab coats on trying to coax crowds of people to follow their weird ways does enter my mind - I am not trying to prove my faith scientifically.

quote:

Define a lot? True creationists are few and far between. Have you also noticed that creationists tend to stick to a strict Christian perspective of life? Coincidence?

I hope I don't fit into this stereotype. My perspective of life is far from the paradigm Christian outlook, or so I believe.

quote:

You�re trying to argue that a Christian perspective should be weighed just as equally as a scientific perspective of the history of life on earth. I�m sorry but the Christian perspective is not unique. Have you not considered the Buddhist perspective? How about the Hindu? Hare Krishna? Why have you so easily discounted their perspectives, and just come down to only 2 left? Even if I were to take all these belief systems into account, why would I possibly weigh a belief system that has absolutely no evidence to support it over a scientific theory that has an overwhelming amount of corroborating data from a multitude of different sciences?

I'm glad you brought this up. I call myself a Christian only because I believe that Jesus was the Son of God. I also believe in the Bible. That's about the extent of it, though - I intermingle with a lot of other religions. I've been to Buddhist temples in Thailand and walked into Islamic communities in Egypt. I'm currently studying Taoism and I am fascinated with some of the ideas. I try to incorporate what I feel is the best parts of the other religions into my life. I would also consider myself part Agnostic, that humans can't fully comprehend the idea of God and whatnot.

Yet, I do consider myself Christian because of what I believe. I've read the Koran, the teachings of Buddha and many other religious texts. I was in a state of "limbo" for a while - and the only that felt "right" to read and truely believe in for me was Christianity.

I know you really didn't ask (and might not care) - I just wanted to let you know where I come from. I believe in one God but I do believe that other people and religions have learned things from experience, many generations of it, and I try to learn from it as well.

quote:

Show me evidence that your belief system is valid, and I will be happy to consider it. Deal?

If I had evidence my belief system is valid, we wouldn't be having this conversation, since free will would be taken away and we'd be praising God or something.

quote:

Do you not realize that this is the creationist answer for everything, regardless of which �branch� of creationism you are referring to here?

Yes, I am aware that the "God did it!" statement is the end all catch all for creationists. It's unavoidable. However, I think most cases when they say "God did it!", he did it (of course), but He followed rules that He Himself set (caps is annoying, I know, but I try to avoid a lightning bolt ) - so I think most (some... whatever) instances of this can be explained by science.

quote:

What�s a �divine sense� of logic?

By divine sense, I mean logic that would make sense to a "Diest". That God did and does everything for a reason, and it all makes sense in some sort of "big picture" kind of way.

quote:

Are you honestly telling me this with a straight face? What on earth is creationism then without the presupposition that God created everything in 6 days, and that the earth is a merely 6 thousand or so yrs. old?

quote:

Define the presuppositions for evolutionary theory, please. I have yet to see them.

Ok, I'll go right to the big one. If God didn't create our universe, our existance, where did it come from?

You believe in the Big Bang? Multi-verse theory? They defy logic. I haven't seen one "theory" that doesn't come off as pure speculation and is notoriously unprovable.

As for the other presuppostions of evolutionary theory...

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm

The bottom line is neither of our faiths are provable because they both depend on certain faith-based assumptions.

If you wish to discuss these assumptions that evolutionists make, let me know. I'll be here for about 9 more hours.

Cheers-

how long have u guys spent on these posts researching?

ive spent 2 hours one time.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Methinks this thread is not going to last much longer unless it attracts a true fundie.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by devonian rabbit You seem to be focusing on the age of the Earth, as opposed to the age of the entire universe. If it is just the Earth that you are talking about, then as has been mentioned, radiometric dating is the strongest evidence for an old Earth. But if you think that the whole universe was created in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago, then there is the equally damning evidence of visible light from distant galaxies. See, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, then we should only be able to see light from stars that are 6,000 light years away. But we don't. Back in 1987, scientists witnessed a star going supernova; it exploded and now doesn't exist. This star was over a 170,000 light years away. That means the star actually exploded 170,000 years ago, and it took the light that long to get here. But if the universe is only several thousand years old, then that star never existed and the supernova never actually happened. Basically, the star and explosion would just be an illusion created by God.. light portraying an event that never actually happened. richard

Is 44:24 - �I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself�

I know you weren't looking for scripture quotes or anything.

Here goes:

Redshift is the only quasi-experimental proof that the universe is indeed expanding. It provides the main support for the Big Bang theories of an "ever-exploding" universe. These theories allow people with math skills and an artistic disregard of reality to pronounce themsleves "Master of the Universe" like Hawking did in the 90's.

The development of the Big Bang theory is based (along with the Hubble law) on two postulates of relativity. First - the speed of light is the same in the whole universe; and Second - that laws and postulates, established here on earth or nearby, are equally valid in the entire universe.

The vacuum light velocity "c" is the velocity of bulk deformation waves in the epola. It therefore depends on local conditions in the "epola space" - like the velocity of sound depends on conditions in solid lattices. (Temperature, concentration and distribution of foreign particles, lattice faults, etc).

Also, dismissing the runaway interpretation (I can explain this more if needbe) of the Hubble-Humason redshifts and the reversal of the "3K background" radiation into the thermal radiation of the epola, along with the disproval of the constancy of light velocity reveal that the Big Bang theory is nothing more than pseudo-science fiction.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Nearly every college library in the country have a database of periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals that give the results of dating studies. Over a thousand research papers are published a year on radiometric dating, essentially all in agreement. In the event that a result does not match, they don't simply throw it away and shrug their shoulders until they get a value they want, they research the reason WHY there is a discrepancy in the date. Therefore, contamination errors as in the case of Potassium-Argon dating, or the dating of sea mollusks are scientifically researched and disseminated to other scientists so they know to avoid making a similar contamination error. Once again, scientists employ not one but SEVERAL dating methods on the same object and the results are consistent among all methods. If radio-dating was flawed, we would see discrepancies all the time. But look up some results yourself ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm afraid you're going to have to be a little bit more specific with respect to this argument. Saying that the reason why facts are interpreted differentely between creationists and evolutionists is because they enter the argument with different presuppositions is somewhat like saying "humans are inherentely biased, therefore there are no such things as facts because arguments put forth as facts by humans are inherentely biased." Now that's clearly false unless you are are attempting to discuss such a thing philosophically. Therefore one must provide examples of such instances that can be proven or disproven. But to the best of my knowledge, no instance of such a thing (that hasn't been responded to) exists.

I don't think my argument at all is like saying "humans are inherentely biased".

Do you deny the fact that the theory of evolution relies on *assumptions*?

Just curious, so I can see where you're coming from.

Let me say this - As a creationist, I sure as hell believe in a lot of assumptions and presupposed ideas. I admit there is no scientific basis for many things that creationists believe in.

However, I believe the same applies to evolutionists. The fact that most don't realize this is what scares me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I did quote him. I believe the quote I quoted is a good quote, and quite quotable. - However, just because I quote someone does not mean I believe in everything they have ever said.

Ahh, let�s remember this last statement you say later�

quote:

You consider developing an immunity/resistance to something "evolving"? I am just curious. Or do you consider this a "mutation-selection mechanism? Purely random mutations in the DNA create new types of organisms, and those organisms which are better at surviving and reproducing tend to leave more offspring. I was taught in biology class this was called a "variation" or "speciation". I do agree it's fascinating - and in my college biology classes (which were very pro-evolution) - all the "evidences" they taught us to support an ever-evolving biological ecosystem was more like variations within the species. Quoting: Speciation is simply a term evolutionary biologists use to describe the processes by which new species evolve in the wild--though it is often equated with "macroevolution". However, when evolutionists claim evidence for "speciation", they have often only witnessed trivial microevolutionary changes in two very similar populations.

You�re stating the same thing. The mutation-selection mechanism is exactly what evolution is � an event of mutation that is selectively chosen via natural selection which favors a more survivable offspring. This is exactly what occurs here in the Petri dishes.

The quote from your book, however, tries to decifer between �micro� and �macro�-evolution. They are inherently the same thing, only that latter takes a substantially longer amount of time. Aside of the bacteria example, here�s another example occurring in a mere 40 yrs. or so:

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete
worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach
Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a
population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs
from this population were transferred to the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these
worms were used as test organisms in environmental
toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was
searched for populations of the worm. Two populations,
P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992)
performed tests on these two populations and the Woods
Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating
isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they
looked at whether broods from crosses were
successfully reared. The results below give the
percentage of successful rearings for each group of
crosses.
WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating
isolation between the WH population and the field
populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed
slightly different karyotypes from the field
populations.

Source: J. R. Weinberg et al. 1992. Evidence for rapid
speciation following a founder event in the
laboratory. Science 46(4):1214-1220.

This was a mere 40 years. Without even examining fossil evidence and stratigraphic correlation, along with other branches relating to evolutionary biology, why would it be so difficult to imagine what would occur over say 400 million years?

Furthermore, where does a creationist separate �micro-� with �macro�? When a creationist, instead, refers to the different ranks of organisms as �kinds�, what defines �kind�? For an evolutionary researcher, there is no separation, because the supporting evidence simply does not require it.

quote:

Sounds like "survival of the fittest" scenario. Your reasoning makes perfect sense. Quoting: "Natural selection is a fact, but all it really means is non-random death. In fact, it is a mere mathematical certainty given variation in a species and "selection pressure" fromthe environment. But before natural selection can become important, there first must be variation upon which selection can act. The problem for evolution lies in the mutation-selection mechanism, where random mutations--the ultimate originator of all variation--must somehow account for the origin of the vast and often irreducible complexity (mentioned above) of life on earth. Natural selection would still give us no answer to answer to the question "how did the different shades of moths originate in the first place?"

Quite a strange quote, and I�d probably have to see the entire passage to understand exactly what the author is referring to here. But I think he/she�s confusing the concept of mutation in the process of natural selection. I don�t see how this is necessarily a �problem� for NS � mutations occur, some harmful, most neutral, and a few allow an advantage for a given population to survive. Natural selection �selects� these few mutations to occur eventually, thus allowing the species to survive.

When a mutation occurs that is considered harmful, the species won�t survive.
When a neutral mutation occurs, it�s likely nothing happens for the species, though it could possibly affect that species in the future.
But when a mutation occurs that benefits a species� survival, the population survives and moves on. Why is that concept difficult?

quote:

I'm no Ken Ham expert - what exactly is his argument against the fact that something adapts to it's environment?

Neither am I, but Ham pretty much discounts practically everything that occurs in evolution.

quote:

The "inaccuracies" in the Bible, to me, are humorous. Every single one is on some word technicality - like in Acts when he describes what should be "past" events when indeed they are probably in the future and things like that. Name a particular instance in the bible where the "inaccuracy" is blatant and irrefutable.

How on earth could the Bible, the inerrant Word of God, have word discrepancies at all?

But seriously, there�s so many that I believe another thread would have to be created for this. This has been done in the past, BTW, but if you wish, feel free to start another thread. I think a good starting point, putting the difficulties of the Great Flood aside, would be to discuss the discrepancies between the historical account in Joshua vs. Judges.

Occ has done a nice job with some other funny contradictions in the Bible, you can discuss them in the thread here as well:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=26

quote:

To you, perhaps. However, to someone like me - who's faith in God will never weaken - is it really dangerous? I'm not trying to pollute the masses of "intelligent" people with my crazy "creationist ideas", am I? -- I pursue these questions for inner-enlightenment and self-growth. That, and I like hearing every side to the story.

But why do you intend to use the Bible as a science book when it was never intended as such?

quote:

I was not aware that all scientific discoveries were made in the name of evolution.

Is that what I stated or implied? No. There are a number of scientific discoveries that has advanced our understanding greatly as a result of understanding evolution � germ theory, human genome project (actually most of genetics for that matter), accuracy of the modern-day classification system, just to name a few.

So my question stands � can the same be said of creationism? Furthermore, could you foresee any scientific advancement in the future as a result of a creationist yelling, �Eureka! Godidit!�?

quote:

On an ironic note, all of modern science originated from a medieval-Christian mindset. St. Thomas paved the way for thinkers like Newton and Einstein.

Nothing ironic about that. What we know now, they simply didn�t know or understand then. And if you�re implying that Einstein was a creationist that was influenced by St. Thomas� thoughts on creationism, I hope you have evidence to support that notion.

quote:

While I do see your logic here - and an image of televangelists with lab coats on trying to coax crowds of people to follow their weird ways does enter my mind - I am not trying to prove my faith scientifically.

How else could I interpret it?

quote:

I hope I don't fit into this stereotype. My perspective of life is far from the paradigm Christian outlook, or so I believe.

This contradicts all evidence that you have brought forth up to this point.

quote:

I'm glad you brought this up. I call myself a Christian only because I believe that Jesus was the Son of God. I also believe in the Bible. That's about the extent of it, though - I intermingle with a lot of other religions. I've been to Buddhist temples in Thailand and walked into Islamic communities in Egypt. I'm currently studying Taoism and I am fascinated with some of the ideas. I try to incorporate what I feel is the best parts of the other religions into my life. I would also consider myself part Agnostic, that humans can't fully comprehend the idea of God and whatnot. Yet, I do consider myself Christian because of what I believe. I've read the Koran, the teachings of Buddha and many other religious texts. I was in a state of "limbo" for a while - and the only that felt "right" to read and truely believe in for me was Christianity. I know you really didn't ask (and might not care) - I just wanted to let you know where I come from. I believe in one God but I do believe that other people and religions have learned things from experience, many generations of it, and I try to learn from it as well.

I do appreciate your roundness on cultural beliefs, however your arguments up to this point have been decisively Christian creationist arguments. And again my question stands, what allowed you to choose this creationist argument against evolution over other religions� arguments?

quote:

If I had evidence my belief system is valid, we wouldn't be having this conversation, since free will would be taken away and we'd be praising God or something.

This contradicts your notions to discredit evolutionary theory. You are attempting to give credibility to your belief system by eliminating what science has offered as a sound explanation to life. How could I think otherwise?

quote:

Yes, I am aware that the "God did it!" statement is the end all catch all for creationists. It's unavoidable. However, I think most cases when they say "God did it!", he did it (of course), but He followed rules that He Himself set (caps is annoying, I know, but I try to avoid a lightning bolt ) - so I think most (some... whatever) instances of this can be explained by science.

Okay, what differentiates between what God is doing, and what nature is doing all in its own? How does one tell the difference?

quote:

By divine sense, I mean logic that would make sense to a "Diest". That God did and does everything for a reason, and it all makes sense in some sort of "big picture" kind of way.

Mmkay, I�ll go with that. Not much to support it, but it is an article of faith to be sure.

quote:

Ok, I'll go right to the big one. If God didn't create our universe, our existance, where did it come from? You believe in the Big Bang? Multi-verse theory? They defy logic. I haven't seen one "theory" that doesn't come off as pure speculation and is notoriously unprovable.

So do black holes, and many other cosmic phenomena, but they occur nonetheless.

My knowledge on cosmology is limited, and you�d be better off asking some individuals that have a better grasp on those concepts like Occrider. I do hope you realize, however, that these type of questions are unrelated to evolutionary processes, so I would hope we could stay focused on one topic at a time.

quote:

As for the other presuppostions of evolutionary theory... http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm

Oh dear, more quote mining. As I�ve stated before, this is a common creationist tactic. I�m going to skip the quotes found in creationist books and authors like Morris and Denton, as well as quite a few that are clearly outdated (will creationists ever update some of these quote mine projects?), and I�ll just tackle a few of those quotes given by evolutionists, where it�s a clear attempt by Creationists to debunk evolution by quoting (uhh, misquoting) evolutionists:

3. "We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution.
-actual quote in full context: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quo...-4.html#quote71

15. We must note then that when Darwin wrote his paper, Origin of Species, he had no skulls, his contemporaries were filled with racism as they tried to find the less than humans, and his Co-founder, Wallace, decided against the theory.
-what does this have to do with assumptions of evolution? Referring to racism is an outlandish and highly unsupportive assertion by creationists in the first place, but it is not related whatsoever to the question at hand.

17. "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson ([22], p.22)
-http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html

18."Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith ([22], p.22)
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quo...-4.html#quote81

29. Darwin: "I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." ([23], p.59)
-http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote76


Furthermore, I did not ask what others had stated - I asked for substantive evidence that evolution works on assumptions. This needs to be defined.

quote:

The bottom line is neither of our faiths are provable because they both depend on certain faith-based assumptions.

The bottom line is you have not given me the �assumptions� that evolution supposedly utilizes to support itself. And just to give you a hint, it�s because there are no assumptions to begin with. There are other scientific discoveries and other research models that evolution requires in order to substantiate itself, but this is no different than any other scientific theory today. Like other sciences, evolution is built upon previous knowledge and research. If this is what you mean by �assumptions�, you�re stretching that definition out pretty darn thin � extremely thin to the point that it loses meaning.

quote:

If you wish to discuss these assumptions that evolutionists make, let me know. I'll be here for about 9 more hours. Cheers-

Define them first in your own words and perhaps we can go from there.

Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil (I can explain this more if needbe)

no need.. i found the page where you lifted that from: http://www.word1.co.il/physics/bigbang.html

but what exactly is it you are arguing about the speed of light & distance of stars, in the context of the age of the universe?


richard

Re: Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by devonian rabbit no need.. i found the page where you lifted that from: http://www.word1.co.il/physics/bigbang.html but what exactly is it you are arguing about the speed of light & distance of stars, in the context of the age of the universe? richard

Simply that the "facts" you base your belief on (evolution) are assumptions and are not provable. The same goes for Creation.

Believing the theory of evolution is just that, a belief. I do agree it's interesting, but it is not fact - do you agree or disagree?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Simply that the "facts" you base your belief on (evolution) are assumptions and are not provable. The same goes for Creation. Believing the theory of evolution is just that, a belief. I do agree it's interesting, but it is not fact - do you agree or disagree?

i agree, basically what you are trying to say is:

the belief in evolution is congruent with heliocentric theory

the belief in creationism is congruent with geocentric theory

both pairs are theories, the difference being one pair is backed by empirical and falsifiable evidence

the other pair is backed by psuedoscience, confirmation bias, and a legion of brainwashed idiots

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by tathi i agree, basically what you are trying to say is: the belief in evolution is congruent with heliocentric theory the belief in creationism is congruent with geocentric theory both pairs are theories, the difference being one pair is backed by empirical and falsifiable evidence the other pair is backed by psuedoscience, confirmation bias, and a legion of brainwashed idiots

I find this statement very disturbing.

I assume you mean the theory of evolution has empirical and falsifiable evidence?

/rant on

Are we, as humans, so egotistical and arrogant that we will assume to know the history of our world? I mean really - every single scientific principle we know - every "empirical and falsifiable evidence" that we use to prove the theory that we evolved - is assumed. For the most part, we have no idea what the world was like 200 years ago, much less 2000 years ago. That's one big and very dangerous ASSUMPTION. I mean hell - you're betting your life on it. More than your life, your the eternal state of your "soul". Isn't that something you want to be really really sure about? I mean for fucks sake - the amount of ignorance that people today seem to have on this simple fact astounds me - doesn't it seem like one hell of a gamble for no payoff? What do you gain by putting all your faith into a theory like this? A clear conscience that you don't have to follow a Diest's rules? A spiritual freedom that allows you to fuck anyone of any sex, whether married or not, with the only fear in your mind the one of man-made laws?

/rant off

Saying that evolution relies on empirical and falsifiable evidence pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with how people think about this.

Sorry for getting in your face or anything - I think I've been quite open minded about everything - but is there really anyone - anyone? - here that truely believes that we (as a human race) are so all-knowing - that we know exactly how the universe has always been? Thinking like that is not only close-minded, but dangerous.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 How on earth could the Bible, the inerrant Word of God, have word discrepancies at all? But seriously, there�s so many that I believe another thread would have to be created for this. This has been done in the past, BTW, but if you wish, feel free to start another thread. I think a good starting point, putting the difficulties of the Great Flood aside, would be to discuss the discrepancies between the historical account in Joshua vs. Judges. Occ has done a nice job with some other funny contradictions in the Bible, you can discuss them in the thread here as well: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=26

Quite an interesting and entertaining thread... It's the exact point of view and attitude of a lot of creation-defenders in there that help give us a bad rep.

Although... interesting, occrider has taken every single ... yep, every one of those - completely out of context. If you want to see for yourself, copy the verse into google and it will pop up on a few "anti-creation" sites as a contridiction in the Bible - and then, of course, you'll see "pro-creation" sites that explain why it's not a contridiction. Although I admit some are interesting and thought-provoking, they are all debunkable.

quote:

But why do you intend to use the Bible as a science book when it was never intended as such?

Explain why it was never intended as such? It makes perfect sense for how I look at the world. True, it might not have the laws of gravity or quantum mechanics in it - but it tells you exactly how the world was made and how it came to be in the state it is in today.

quote:

Is that what I stated or implied? No. There are a number of scientific discoveries that has advanced our understanding greatly as a result of understanding evolution � germ theory, human genome project (actually most of genetics for that matter), accuracy of the modern-day classification system, just to name a few. So my question stands � can the same be said of creationism? Furthermore, could you foresee any scientific advancement in the future as a result of a creationist yelling, �Eureka! Godidit!�?

That's kind of a loaded question. However, since you'll take genetics, germ theory, human genome project and all the classification systems as "discoveries made in the name of evolution" - I'll take every discovery before say, 1850, and claim it in the name of religion. Since pretty much everyone was religious and believed in God (whether it's the Christian God, Buddha, Allah, whatever) before then - wouldn't it be fair to say that they all made their discoveries to find out how the world (which they believed God made and put them on) - worked.

quote:

Nothing ironic about that. What we know now, they simply didn�t know or understand then. And if you�re implying that Einstein was a creationist that was influenced by St. Thomas� thoughts on creationism, I hope you have evidence to support that notion.

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
Albert Einstein

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
Albert Einstein

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
Albert Einstein

(Those quotes taken a bit out of context... easy isn't it?)

quote:

quote: Seventil: I hope I don't fit into this stereotype. My perspective of life is far from the paradigm Christian outlook, or so I believe. MisterOpus1: This contradicts all evidence that you have brought forth up to this point.

I meant as the way I live my life. I do look at the world as a Christian would- but I do not consider myself a typical one, I guess. I don't go to Church, and I have issues with organized religion in general(somewhat unrelated to the topic). That's all I meant.

quote:

I do appreciate your roundness on cultural beliefs, however your arguments up to this point have been decisively Christian creationist arguments. And again my question stands, what allowed you to choose this creationist argument against evolution over other religions� arguments?

I choose this one because it's what I believe in. I'll listen and usually be interested in any religions arguments. Including evolution.

quote:

This contradicts your notions to discredit evolutionary theory. You are attempting to give credibility to your belief system by eliminating what science has offered as a sound explanation to life. How could I think otherwise? Furthermore, I did not ask what others had stated - I asked for substantive evidence that evolution works on assumptions. This needs to be defined. The bottom line is you have not given me the �assumptions� that evolution supposedly utilizes to support itself. And just to give you a hint, it�s because there are no assumptions to begin with. There are other scientific discoveries and other research models that evolution requires in order to substantiate itself, but this is no different than any other scientific theory today. Like other sciences, evolution is built upon previous knowledge and research. If this is what you mean by �assumptions�, you�re stretching that definition out pretty darn thin � extremely thin to the point that it loses meaning.

See my above reply to tathi. I ask the same question to you:

Do we know - or assume - the past state and conditions of the universe that has led us up to modern science?

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