Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: loser Evidence of creationism is everywhere...it's what drives life.

Then present some. It is as simple as that. You have been asked before and don't seem to be able to present a single shred of evidence that supports creationism. So please, stop the whining and present the evidence.

[Halofan48]

Quote by: loser Well, that's not what I was saying but it's a thought. I was saying that anybody who puts their faith in a doctor (who goes to the doctor) was clueless.

I do really on doctors to treat injuries and illnesses. When I broke my arm, I went to a doctor who realigned the bone and put a cast on it and it healed correctly. If an ingrown toenail becomes infected, i go to have the toenail removed and receive antibiotics for the infection (the last this done was 6 days ago, and now my toe feels fine and looks the way it should, still have to finish the antibiotics though). When i fell head first off my scooter going down hill and chipped all of my front teeth up to the gums, a doctor reconstructed them, allowing me to chew food. Doctors are helpful, yet this is off topic so i'll stop here.

One question: why have I not seen you advise rez or gallo to stop the "personal comments"? It is absolutely undeniable that no one snipes at others more than these two. Could it be a brotherhood thing?

I said it to everyone, that's why i didn't include a name. I did not say " loser, stop with the personal comments".

Also, your right about the unicorn argument in regards to that there are animals with one horn. What i thought you meant by unicorn is the mythical horse with a horn description, so i apologize for that mistake.

[southernbread]

actually everything everyone is saying is great. But, have you ever wondered why your able to think? hmm or why your not able to grasp other things? This is why I think people get confussed. You see we as people have to see something to belive it. thats why we dont belive the bible. how could one man do this just for me, how could this happen? blah blah blah blah. why cant we just trust through our hearts that there are things that we will never understand but just trust that they exsist and dont ask questions. The bible was written to be read with your heart and not through your eyes. Yes, there are bible books missing but thats how they explain things. Your proof but no matter if it had every detail in it you still wouldnt belive its true unless it had happen to you first hand. do you have children? then you know for a fact theres a GOD so theres my proof.

[gallo]

Quote by: loser There's your mistake. Creationists want to prove science right. It's the scientists (not all, but most) that they aim to show wrong.

Now you're just trying to be funny by making ridiculous statements. It is scientists that want to show that science is wrong. Have I got it?

There is a HUGE difference between science (a reality) and people calling themselves scientists (fallible, pretentious, and superstitious)...the difference between right and wrong.

Well, you have called yourself a scientist, and you are certainly fallible, pretentious and superstitious. And since you are, more often than not, laughingly and embarrassingly wrong, that means that scientists are right.

And a VERY GOOD POINT! But, yet, somehow you fail to see that "constructed" and "pieced together" and "constructing" and "joining" all are equivalent to CREATE and not EVOLVE! Of course we can create things (in the lab or elsewhere) because CREATION is how life works. How could it be any simpler?

Then we agree that since man can create life, no god is necessary to do so.

How totally ridiculous is that? Nature (natural means) could not exist until AFTER the universe and life existed.

That's one of your sillier statements. It ranks right up there with claiming that random means uncaused.

Computers boot themselves up but a bootstrap program is required beforehand for it to do so.

And what does that have to do with the non-supernatural origin of the universe?

You sure believe in magic an awful lot for a biologist.

I didn't mention magic or any magic process. You have in the past. You seem to believe in a magic being who created everything by magic as recounted in a book of mythology.

Magic particles?

Did you learn that in a chemistry course?

Magic, magic, magic...you're way too superstitious for anyone to take serious as a scientist...no, wait...you're actually the poster child for modern scientists. I stand corrected.

But I was describing the ideas that you expressed here. You can't defend your magic so you pretend that I wasn't talking about you.

It's called geographic isolation.

That should be "geographical isolation." The terminology actually uses literate English.

Being weak in geography can be a detriment to an EB, can't it? Who wudda thunk it?

But it's not geography. Being weak in science can be a real detriment to trying to debate science, can't it?

Let's put the whole thing back into context, shall we? You have done some cherry picking by taking bits and pieces of what I said out of context. Here's the proper context. You said:

What's a more logical and sensible explanation for the universe than the idea it was created?

I answered:

But that explains nothing. How was it created? Why are there quarks, leptons, mesons, baryons, and hadrons? How were these created and why to the join the way they do? What is gravity? Why do certain life forms exist in only a certain limited geographical area, for example Darwin's finches which exist only in the Galapagos islands, some species existing only on a single island? Or the mocking birds, or the tortoises, or the flightless cormorants, or the aquatic iguanas? Is it more logical to assume that a magical being just created all of these creatures from nothing rather than that they evolved from other, similar species. And why are the Galapagos volcanic? It is logical to assume that the islands were build by the action of the volcanoes, since we still see such action going on. Is it more logical and sensible to claim that they were placed there by magic and only made to look like they are volcanic?

You didn't even attempt to answer a single question, you just dishonestly misrepresented the context and replied with nonsense.

Yes, but you can only ride a dead horse for so long. Don't you think it's about time that you find one that is still breathing?

So you can't explain why you continue to reverse your position time after time when you are embarrassed by facts that 6th graders should know.

Are you being purposely disingenuous? Creationists do not oppose any scientific fact or theory with merit.

That's nonsense. Creationists oppose scientific theories from cosmology, physics, geology, nuclear physics, biology, and on and on. Creationists conclude that scientific theories are without merit because the theories are in conflict with a belief in mythology as TROOTH.

What they oppose are fallacious arguments attempting to paint God as a magical being instead of the Creator that He is.

But science doesn't make any such arguments. Science offers natural explains observations of natural events. However, when creationists inject their beliefs in a magical being into discussions of science, or try to force their belief in magic as science into public schools, it is often pointed out.

A big bang (God's firecracker) is not a problem. Abiogenesis is not a problem but is unneeded except possibly for the existence of God.

But of course, science indicates that a god isn't necessary for either the big bang or abiogenesis. That's your problem. You inject magic.

Evolution is not a problem except when clueless men not worthy of being called scientists extend it to include macro evolution or common descent.

That's what I said above. You reject scientific theories that have great merit because you have religious objections. You prefer mythology and magic that answers no questions.

If they will accept the fact that different kinds of animals were created in the beginning of life on earth and evolution is really nothing more than the dynamic change of life (which is limited to reality) and not the magic transitions imagined by superstitious men, then creationists will welcome aboard EB's on the Truth Train.

And you began this post talking about pretentious and superstitious scientists. Go back and read what you just wrote. "kinds" of animals were created "in the beginning." And, of course, based on mythology, you know the truth, while scientists who observe, hypothesize, predict, and test are superstitious as opposed to creationists who know the answer to every question before it is asked - "goddidit!" Creationism is just magic.

By the way, I notice that since I started pointing out to you that creationism is nothing more than a belief in magic, you have had no rational response except to make silly claims that science is somehow magic. And yet, you claim to be a chemist.

Isn't that the real problem? Freshman thinking they have all the answers, the impudent folly of youth!

No. It wasn't a matter of having all of the answers. It was a matter of learning for the first time about ideas that are so stupid as to be mind numbing. And I have learned since of the thousands of views of the magical creation held by the thousands of creationist cults. Do you know that some creationists actually hold the insane belier that they will be whisked away - just disappear - by their magical being at the "end of days?" The "Left Behind" series of fiction books tells about this particular insanity by certain creationist cults.

I just don't see anything that can be taken as serious from creationists.

So, can you present evidence for creation. I realize that you have been asked before and haven't even attempted to answer. But maybe you will do so this time. After all, you claim that there is evidence. Please present it.

[Jack]

The bible was written to be read with your heart and not through your eyes.

Since I don't know braille, I'm limited to reading with my eyes...and using my brain, an organ which analyzes and assimilates what I've read better than does my heart, an organ which pumps my blood. Having read the Bible using my brain, I understand it to be a book very true to its time and the level of understanding of its authors. It's a mythology that explains, in terms simple people of the time could understand, why nature and the world are the way they are. The creation story, the history of the Jews as portrayed in the Old Testament, the story of Jesus as the messiah-the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecy, the teachings of the early Christian leaders to the churches of the time; it's a story, partly truth and largely fiction, that gave the early believers something to rally around, a guidebook for their belief.

Two thousand years later it's outdated and unnecessary. We no longer need to propose gods to explain nature. Biology explains nature using only the processes observed in nature. No need to suppose a supernature. Geology provides a natural explanation for the formation of the planet that doesn't require a superhuman creator. Cosmology is making inroads into understanding the development of the universe, a development that depends on the same natural processes that created this planet and each of us. Nowhere have we found any evidence of divine influence in nature.

So if you want to believe the Bible and accept the creation story it portrays, go right ahead. But don't expect those of us who prefer to look at nature as a natural, not supernatural, system to accept the Biblical story of creation. It's nonsensical, unscientific and supported by absolutely no evidence that can be tested and evaluated for validity. Asking us to ignore the evidence is to ask us to cease using our brains. Ain't gonna happen.

[Halofan48]

Quote by: Southernbred why cant we just trust through our hearts that there are things that we will never understand but just trust that they exsist and dont ask questions

Perhaps there are somethings we will never understand, but to say a god did it is just trying to understand something you don't. We're human, its our nature to ask questions, to think of new ideas to improve our lives or just so we have knowledge of it, we might not know everything. And so what. Why must we fill the gap of that which we do not understand with something like a god.

Quote by: Southernbred do you have children? then you know for a fact theres a GOD so theres my proof.

That's not proof at all. What about people who have kids and who are atheists?

[gallo]

Quote by: southernbread actually everything everyone is saying is great. But, have you ever wondered why your able to think?

Actually, I've never wondered about my able at all, since I have no idea what my able is.

hmm or why your not able to grasp other things?

Since I have no idea of what my able is, I have even less understanding of my not able.

This is why I think people get confussed.

Well, you have certainly confused me.

You see we as people have to see something to belive it.

Backwards. We believe what we don't see.

thats why we dont belive the bible.

Make up your mind.

how could one man do this just for me, how could this happen? blah blah blah blah.

What are you talking about? Does this have anything to do with my able or my not able?

why cant we just trust through our hearts that there are things that we will never understand but just trust that they exsist and dont ask questions.

Because if you don't ask questions, then you don't find any answers. If we followed you plan, then we would still be living in the stone age.

The bible was written to be read with your heart and not through your eyes.

But I see with my eyes. How can I read without them?

Yes, there are bible books missing but thats how they explain things.

What books are missing and how do the explain things?

Your proof but no matter if it had every detail in it you still wouldnt belive its true unless it had happen to you first hand.

I'm not sure what that said. What, exactly, is "its true" that you presume that I don't believe?

do you have children? then you know for a fact theres a GOD so theres my proof.

Yes. I have children. So how is that your proof of a magical being rather than the result of natural processes?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: southernbread do you have children? then you know for a fact theres a GOD so theres my proof.

All you proved by having kids is that you can transmit your genes to another generation and thus take part in evolution.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: southernbread bible was written to be read with your heart and not through your eyes.

What about reading it through our eyes and analysing it with your brain instead of just reading it through your heart and believe in it blindly?

[nerdvincent]

Why do you creationist believe in Bible and not in Greek Mythology or in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may the pasta be with you)? Why do you think Bible is a more reliable source?

[loser]

Without the existence of gods, the actions of believers are simply acts of inhumanity, as their acts of mercy and kindness are acts of humanity.

Even with the existence of God, I believe this holds true. However, the Bible asserts that we are either led by God or pulled by Satan. It explains how God will dwell within a person if they allow Him in. Satan, on the other hand, forces his way in (possesses or binds). We have two opposite Spirits (good and evil) which operate by opposite methods. According to scripture, God does good through people who are willing. Satan does his evil by pulling the strings of people like a Puppet Master with puppets.

Of course, this is all nonsense to people who reject the reality of extraterrestrial beings. Spirits don't exist. Demon possession is just mental illness. There are no unseen forces working on human beings other than those already identified as natural forces. The supernatural is make believe and non-existent. There is no God.

I'm okay with that because God is okay with that. He's not calling everybody and He's choosing even less.The number of the faithful should continue to dwindle. Jesus remarked, "When I return, will I find any with faith?".

Not many, that's for sure.

There are many schools of thought. Creationists only have one, but science has many.

Well, the one school - the universe has always been here - cannot be divided any further. The second school - it hasn't always been here - can possibly be divided into different explanations as to what was there before the universe and how it could have come about, but I still only see two choices.

The existence of a supernatural god is presumed without reason or evidence; the existence of god is presumed to be an a priori assumption before any evidence is examined;...

And how is that different?

A blog I happened across today addresses this in detail:

I didn't agree with those assumptions.

Isn't science with its eagerness to explain everything not just another example of mental horror vacui? Is it different from religion in this respect? I think it is different.

I don't.

The Christian religion makes it clear that we see life "through a blurry window". There's a lot we don't know and can't understand but that's okay...in time, it will all be revealed. Science is a stab in the dark, an attempt to gather this 'unattainable' knowledge.

People are not as superstitious and ignorant as they were thousands of years ago.

More.

Are you incapable of coming up with other possibilities?

Absolutely. Either it's always existed or it hasn't. Either or...two choices.

Quote: Because they have turned to stone? Do you think they turned to stone?

Yes. Are you suggesting they don't?

If none of these "creatures" ever existed, then why do we have their bones? (Well, actually, mineralized bones - now rocks.)

Be sure and tell gallo...he thinks they have fossilized, too!

You are so selectivly skeptical...

And you think that this is detrimental to rational thought exactly how?

I don't know about you, but I am trying to honestly find the answers to the questions. That means I have to educate myself on all possibilities.

No one could ask for more.

Quote by: loser View Post Quote: Fossil cockroaches show significant evolution from modern species. What are these significant changes? Do you make an effort to miss the point?

No, the effort was to make a point!

[quote] For a long time creationists pretended that speciation wasn't possible, that no organism actually formed new species. However,when facing the impossibility of two of every "kind" on an ark, soon decided that the imagined barrier between kinds was actually at the level of genus. Just one example of the evolution of creationism as eternal religious truth. [quote]

For a long time, evolutionists pretended that evolution was a long, gradual change (anagenesis). However, when facing the impossibility of that theory championed by the theologian Darwin because of the fossil record, they soon decided to go with punctuated equilibrium (cladogenesis). Just one example of the evolution of evolution as eternal religious truth.

No creationist has ever been able to present any evidence for the imagined barrier between "kinds," nor has any creationist been able to offer an example of an organism that had actually reached that barrier and was prevented from further evolution.

Except for the evidence and example that evolutionists have not been able to cross that (not so) "imaginary" barrier by evolving (procreating) a kind into another kind.

But, of course, that doesn't prove macroevolution because it isn't. ... ...It is not macroevolution because all changes took place below the level of species.

Yeah, well, it's hard to prove things that don't exist.

If none of these "creatures" ever existed, then why do we have their bones?

They were mis-classified.

So would you like to try again, since you embarrassed yourself to such an extent in your first attempt?

What? You want me to embarrass myself again?

As I mentioned, you claimed to speak with authority on the topic. By the way, only 4 are dinosaurs, but all of those had feathers.

The bird-dinosaur connection has been discredited. What we see all the time in the fantasy cladistics tree is DEPICTIONS of ARTIST'S RENDITIONS of creatures that never existed. These 'feathered dinosaurs' which purport to show the bird-dinosaur connection are nothing more than the fossils of birds.

Is everybody completely brain-dead?

So here is the list again. What is a transitional? How could these creatures have existed and why are they gone if creationism is true? Quote: Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Pederpes, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Aconthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Greerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pakicetus, Ichthyolestes, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Dahlanistes, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Sinovenator, Byronosaurus.

Extinction of species has nothing to do with the validity of creationism.

Please post a picture of each of these 'creatures' and I will classify it for you (sorry, no depictions or artist's renditions accepted...we're not interested in myth and fantasy, only real creatures).

Please educate yourself lest you make yourself look foolish again.

I guess you never watched Columbo.

How sad that you can't distinguish between definitions of evolutions, examples of evolution, mechanisms of evolution, and theories of evolution. Tragically, creationists not only misunderstand, they see their own ignorance as an argument against science. That seems to be true in your case.

I can't tell you much about Harry Potter and his brand of magic either but my ignorance of your foolishness is an argument FOR SCIENCE and not against it. That is indeed true in my case.

There is no doubt, after 150 years of testing that the basics of evolutionary theory are correct. No major tenet of evolutionary theory has ever been shown to be incorrect.

You sure proved that. If you say so, who could doubt it?...certainly not YOU!

And it seems to have happened quite quickly, in the geologic scale of things. But certainly not in the time of a human life span. Evidence indicates that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and the first signs of life appear in the fossil record at about 3.8 billion years. But that doesn't begin to differentiate until about 570 million years ago. Relatively speaking, elementary life didn't take much time at all. More complex life took a long time after that. In fact, the time from the first signs of primitive life to the first signs of the development of complex life is longer than that from complex life to today.

Well, being eternal and all, I guess God does have a lot of time. Of course, how much are you going to know with just a hundred years to ponder...with half of that, for all intents and purposes, brainless?

[loser]

...i have gradually come to the conclusion that the word 'god' in any race or religion means nothing to me however i would appreciate a believer explaining to me what the word means for them and if all people who stand on that side of the fence would agree that it means the one and same thing to all.

God is a very powerful, sentient being composed of 'energy', the source of all matter and energy in the universe. If matter or energy is destroyed, it reverts back to God. He is the sum total of all that is. Not to confuse you, however, I am also a Christian. Even still, I would be called a heretic by the majority of religions which call themselves Christian. This is because the whole world is deceived and just a very few know the truth. Of course, others who disagree with me would call me delusional. So, no, the opinions on this side of the fence (the believers in God) is as varied as that on the other side...there is no consensus, only confusion.

I propose we cease defending evolutionary biology against worthless claims and instead insist that those who offer alternatives provide scientifically credible evidence to support their claims.

There's the rub. The majority will always rule. None of the scientific evidence I could provide would ever be credible to those who oppose my view. I guess the point bleeds over to another thread: Can people choose what they believe?

At any rate, as has been pointed out, Creation and Evolution are apples and oranges. I agree with MOST of what is called Evolution, jumping off at the common descent part (or the origins of life).

I'll shut up and go elsewhere (another thread). Maybe I won't antagonize as much as I did here.

Then present some. It is as simple as that. You have been asked before and don't seem to be able to present a single shred of evidence that supports creationism. So please, stop the whining and present the evidence.

I did somewhere way back there. No matter, I'm out of gas.

I do really on doctors to treat injuries and illnesses. When I broke my arm, I went to a doctor who realigned the bone and put a cast on it and it healed correctly. If an ingrown toenail becomes infected, i go to have the toenail removed and receive antibiotics for the infection (the last this done was 6 days ago, and now my toe feels fine and looks the way it should, still have to finish the antibiotics though). When i fell head first off my scooter going down hill and chipped all of my front teeth up to the gums, a doctor reconstructed them, allowing me to chew food. Doctors are helpful, yet this is off topic so i'll stop here.

I agree that doctors do have a limited use. My point was that the more you rely on doctors, the more dangerous it becomes because your own body is better equipped at fighting illnesses than the treatments offered by doctors. There should be a warning label on all doctors: USE WITH CARE!

I said it to everyone, that's why i didn't include a name. I did not say " loser, stop with the personal comments".

Thank you...

Also, your right about the unicorn argument in regards to that there are animals with one horn. What i thought you meant by unicorn is the mythical horse with a horn description, so i apologize for that mistake.

...and thank you, again. My point there was that I feel that misnomers cause a lot of confusion and error and argument. It's like semantics. A lot of debate would be eliminated if we actually knew what people meant by the words that they used.

Halofan48, I like your style!

Do you surf?

[LookToTheFuture]

Quote by: loser God is a very powerful, sentient being composed of 'energy', the source of all matter and energy in the universe. If matter or energy is destroyed, it reverts back to God. He is the sum total of all that is. Not to confuse you, however, I am also a Christian. Even still, I would be called a heretic by the majority of religions which call themselves Christian. This is because the whole world is deceived and just a very few know the truth. Of course, others who disagree with me would call me delusional. So, no, the opinions on this side of the fence (the believers in God) is as varied as that on the other side...there is no consensus, only confusion.

On the rational that you trust in "the Law of Conservation of energy" stating something like energy cannot be created or destroyed only transferred into different types do you then admit that no energy ever returns to God and therefore this being can only ever lose energy. In the beginning God must have had all the energy, right? On this thought God only gives out this energy and will eventually have none left, unless of course he has an infinite amount but infinity can't really be possible. Can it?
By the way, what is the truth? When all you have is belief and i suppose that is all anyone has at the end of the day since most of what people hold as true in there own mind has been imparted to them by a selection of third parties and second/third/fourth hand information. Very little or none of what we learn or believe is developed by ourselves without any external influence. Any conclusions that anyone draws by themselves are irrevocably affected by those previous teaching that have been accepted as truth and therefore can anyone ever believe anything, truly, knowing that? Anyway i ramble on.

[loser]

gallo: Since this is my last post on this thread, I am going to answer to all of your responses with one fell swoop.

I may have done a little sniping at you, so I will suffer your snipes...and they were many.

I didn't answer all of your questions because I took them as rhetorical. But even if I hadn't, I wouldn't try to give you a science lesson here on this thread. If you need to know those things, Google them. If you think I need to prove myself to you, think again.

I am quite schooled in Chemistry, Physics, Psychology, Geometry, and Mathematics and to a lesser degree Biology, Geology, Astronomy, History, and Geography. Your words cannot call into question my knowledge, only your own. Likewise, my words will judge me and not you. Other people might be tired by our garrulous speech, impressed by our eloquent prose, put off by our ostentatious style, and angered by our derisive gibes, but they're not likely to be fooled by our mendacious attacks.

I am rubber and you are glue...your words bounce off me and stick on you.

You're done with me. May evolution fulfill your every need. Tell your students you didn't find God but you did meet His friend.

[gallo]

Quote by: loser gallo: Since this is my last post on this thread, I am going to answer to all of your responses with one fell swoop. I may have done a little sniping at you, so I will suffer your snipes...and they were many. I didn't answer all of your questions because I took them as rhetorical. But even if I hadn't, I wouldn't try to give you a science lesson here on this thread. If you need to know those things, Google them. If you think I need to prove myself to you, think again. I am quite schooled in Chemistry, Physics, Psychology, Geometry, and Mathematics and to a lesser degree Biology, Geology, Astronomy, History, and Geography. Your words cannot call into question my knowledge, only your own. Likewise, my words will judge me and not you. Other people might be tired by our garrulous speech, impressed by our eloquent prose, put off by our ostentatious style, and angered by our derisive gibes, but they're not likely to be fooled by our mendacious attacks. I am rubber and you are glue...your words bounce off me and stick on you. You're done with me. May evolution fulfill your every need. Tell your students you didn't find God but you did meet His friend.

That was pretty sappy but thanks for your admission that you can't actually answer any questions about science. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between random and uncaused can't be as educated as you claim to be. It is also quite clear that you are unable to present any evidence to support creationism. Instead, we get your misunderstanding of science and biology, no doubt caused by ignorance of both.

[Jack]

I am quite schooled...my words will judge me and not you

Indeed they have. They've helped illustrate the difference between schooling and learning, between being exposed to information and actually comprehending it. To disagree with concepts poorly understood does not discredit those concepts or even challenge them.

Those of us opposed to allowing creationism to pose as a science have read the statements of those behind the ID movement and the Bible, the source of the Judeo-Christian creation story. We read the sites of those suggesting creationism has scientific support. We have studied our opposition and can refute their contentions based on our understanding of their argument.

Creationists, in large part, never bother to fully comprehend science or more specifically evolutionary biology. They depend on other creationists, and their own subjective perceptions, to supply them with a limited and incorrect notion of the tenets they oppose. They don't "know their enemy" and therefore are poorly equipped to go into battle against those who don't accept their creation story. Those opposing them are not only advocates of evolution, but non-scientific atheists and those of other faiths with their own creation stories.

To attempt to debate a subject without having grasped the fundamentals of the opposing viewpoint leads to frustration and a failure to prevail. Bluster alone will not convince anyone. No one succeeds in a debate by putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "la-la-la-la". If you oppose evolution but cannot provide any reason to accept creationism, then you're basically indicating you either believe in neither or that you've chosen a position to take for no practical reason beyond faith.