Creationism vs. Evolution

[Jack]

It's not a matter of proving gods don't exist (I say "gods" because we have to remember that the Christian god is not the only god people have and do believe exists). The point of this thread, this debate, is centered around the premise that when it comes to the natural evolution of life on this planet, there is no need to include supernatural gods in the process. Evolution is widely acknowledged as the theory that best accounts for the evidence so far discovered. Evolutionary theory influences every other physical science. For example, medicine develops vaccines based on what it's learned from the evolution of microbes. Evolution is the conclusion scientists have reached after examining the evidence found in nature, evolution is where that evidence leads.

Creation stories differ from society to society. There's isn't such a thing as the creation story. They often differ in radical ways. Nearly every one does have at least one thing in common, though. They almost always involve gods, spirits or other mystical creatures that operate outside the natural laws of our planet. Another common factor is the absolute lack of physical, testable, verifiable evidence to provide credibility to these stories. You can certainly accept any one of these stories and believe that it accurately describes how life developed on the Earth. What you can't do with any degree of intellectual honesty is pretend any of these stories are in the least bit scientific. Science is a strict method of looking at evidence. The scientific method provides the framework for deciding what is scientific and what isn't. Creationism and Intelligent Design fall outside the line. They are not subject to the scientific method and are therefore not scientific.

[LookToTheFuture]

Southernbread,

I don't generally like to pick on the minority but the 'you proove he dosn't exist' argument is a bit weak. Do aliens exist? no one knows just as no one knows if god exists conclusively. i.e. there is no solid tangible evidence to proove the case either way. My point is that you can't ask anyone to disprove the existance of something that no one can even proove the existence of in the first place. I suppose that in the end the debates on the existence of a superior all powerful being is pointless since there is no evidence either way and all it comes down to is weather you decide to beleive in something without evidence or not.

[Century 25]

"Creationism" - Nothing is worse than active ignorance.

I wanna go back to the future. IF there is one..

[gallo]

Quote by: Century 25 "Creationism" - Nothing is worse than active ignorance. I wanna go back to the future. IF there is one..

We can only wonder what that means. How nice that you could contribute nothing.

[Century 25]

Quote by: gallo We can only wonder what that means. How nice that you could contribute nothing.

We.. gallo..? Are you more than one, or do you normally speak in the 3rd person persona..? Well.. just for you (and your alter id) - I confess to being aghast at the concept of "creationism" - period. And of the thought that this world is in the hands of so many entirely "lost" people.

On that basis, our future looks grim.

[navyrkh]

I'm interested to hear anyone's opinion on findings such as artifacts showing people with dinosaurs. Also, footprints of man next to dinos. Wouldn't evolution be discredited if it could be proven that fully "evolved" man lived with "millions of years old" dinosaurs? It's interesting how we had ancient artifacts showing certain dinosaurs differently than what archeologist at the time thought they should look like only to discover later that they were correct.

[navyrkh]

A decent site to check out on what I'm randomly talking about with the whole man and dino co-existing would be Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca . The petrified cowboy leg still in the boot is interesting. As far as I know, no one has discredited the ancient findings.

[Halofan48]

...Dude, come on. Do you really think that those are real? Man and Dinosaur never existed at the same time. We'd likely be totally screwed if we did. Why? Well, let's think, there were things that we could no way fight that would consider us snack food. Raptors would likely prey on us. We'd just be the little meal for the rest of the species. If we tried to build, we'd be eaten, trampled, etc. We never existed at the same time. Any evidence produced supporting otherwise is obviously fake.

[navyrkh]

If it could be proven that fully "evolved" man lived with "millions of years old" dinosaurs than the religion of evolution would be dead in the water. Check out Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca and view some of the discovered ancient artifacts depicting man and dino co-existing. Explain how a human leg still inside of a cowboy boot could possibly become petrified. Theories and nice ideas are fine, but evolution falls apart in the face of reality. The problem is that many are being taught the religion of evolution and are trying to force the "evidence" to back up that belief.
Hmmmm? So, Halofan48 you disregard evidence because it doesn't fit your "reasoning"? That's very open-minded of you...

[Halofan48]

No, i disregard it because: one, anything depicting both human remains with dinosaur remains at the same time is obviously a fabrication. two, they could easily say they are from a certain date when they really aren't. It's like me taking a skull and saying it was found 500 ft underground, when really it was 5 ft. It's called mis information.

And frankly, any site called "interactive bible home page www.bible.ca" is likely incorrect. Just because someone says it doesn't make it true Evolution has accurate evidence from all over the world. Your's does not.

[gallo]

Quote by: navyrkh I'm interested to hear anyone's opinion on findings such as artifacts showing people with dinosaurs.

I'm not aware that there have been any such artifacts found. You would have to tell us about them. Without knowing more, however, I would have to say that any such artifacts are fake or incorrectly interpreted since dinosaurs, except for birds, died out about 65 million years ago.

Also, footprints of man next to dinos.

No such footprints have ever been found. Some creationists have been taken in by carvings made and sold to tourists during the depression. Most notably, Mr. Carl Baugh and Mr. Don Patton (Both have awarded themselves bogus Ph.D. degrees) tout the Burdick print as somehow being that of a giant. Any fool who has ever seen a human footprint can easily see that the Burdick print is a fake. Moreover, the claimed tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River all turned out to be dinosaur tracks. Not even Baugh continues to claim that a single one of his original "man tracks" is human. Instead, he now claims to find "man tracks" inside the tracks of dinosaurs. If you are gullible enough, you might fall for that. I've seen the tracks.

Wouldn't evolution be discredited if it could be proven that fully "evolved" man lived with "millions of years old" dinosaurs?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fully "evolved" man'. But no matter, even an "incompletely evolved" man living with dinosaurs would discredit the theory of evolution.

It's interesting how we had ancient artifacts showing certain dinosaurs differently than what archeologist at the time thought they should look like only to discover later that they were correct.

I'm not sure what artifacts have to do with dinosaurs. How does a man made object show us anything about dinosaurs? Why are archaeologists studying dinosaurs? What does the study of human life and culture from the past have to do with dinosaurs?

Quote by: navyrkh A decent site to check out on what I'm randomly talking about with the whole man and dino co-existing would be Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca .

What a load! They lied to you and you believed it.

The petrified cowboy leg still in the boot is interesting. As far as I know, no one has discredited the ancient findings.

Is it actually necessary to debunk such an idea? Even if it were true, what does it show about dinosaurs or the age of humans?

Quote by: navyrkh If it could be proven that fully "evolved" man lived with "millions of years old" dinosaurs than [sic] the religion of evolution would be dead in the water.

Again, I'm not sure what a 'fully "evolved" human' is. Creationists don't even seem to be able to decide which hominid fossils are human and which are not. The same creationist often has a difficult time deciding. For example, in 1992 Paul S. Taylor declared that both Java Man and Peking Man were apes. In 1995 he claimed that Java Man was an ape while Peking Man had somehow become human. By 1996, both Java Man and Peking Man were human. He didn't indicate if they were "fully evolved" humans or not.

Similarly, Duane Gish claimed in 1979 that ER 1470 was human but in 1985 said that it was an ape. So, perhaps you can understand my confusion about what you might mean when you talk about "fully evolved" humans. I wasn't aware that there was a condition for any organism that made it "fully evolved."

Also, you seem to scorn religion by trying to reduce the science of biology to a matter of belief without evidence. Such is the nature of religion. I can assure you that biology is not my faith any more than physics or geology are.

Check out Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca and view some of the discovered ancient artifacts depicting man and dino co-existing.

They aren't really what they are claimed to be. Guys like Baugh and Patton depend on the gullible faithful.

Explain how a human leg still inside of a cowboy boot could possibly become petrified.

Why? What does it have to do with dinosaurs or evolution?

Theories and nice ideas are fine, but evolution falls apart in the face of reality.

What reality is that? Wouldn't it be nice if you actually took a science course and made an effort to learn?

The problem is that many are being taught the religion of evolution and are trying to force the "evidence" to back up that belief.

Can you give me some examples? Are geology and physics also religions?

Hmmmm? So, Halofan48 you disregard evidence because it doesn't fit your "reasoning"? That's very open-minded of you...

I'm sure that isn't the reason that Halofan48 'disregards' your so called 'evidence'. I'm sure that he actually has some science education and isn't gullible enough to fall for such claims. How open minded of you to claim that evolution is a religion, and as such, tries to force the "evidence." Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Forcing invented evidence in the name of your religion of creationism?

[navyrkh]

Just because someone says it doesn't make it true

....

[gallo]

Quote by: navyrkh Quote by: Halofan48 Just because someone says it doesn't make it true

Exactly! I am so pleased that you realize that your site actually presents no evidence for anything. Just because they say something doesn't make it so. Science depends on observational evidence that is used to formulate an hypothesis. A prediction is made from the hypothesis and then a test is designed and performed that tests the prediction. In the case of current science, that process has been followed again and again. The tested hypotheses are called scientific theories, such as the theory of gravitation (actually not a well supported theory), atomic theory, the theory of plate tectonics in geology, and, of course, the theories of evolution in biology. In science, no one thinks that anything is true just because someone says it. They must first present their observations, hypotheses, predictions and tests.

Or maybe you still believe that the earth is flat.

Why didn't you address a single one of my questions? Why didn't you present any evidence? Well, at least you are aware that you shouldn't fall for the nonsense at that site just because they say it is so.

[navyrkh]

Halofan48 check out this site about the possibility of humans surviving with dinosaurs Dinosaurs And Man? . gallo try Dinosaurs and Man - Home and explain how and why ancient people would draw pictures and make pottery showing dinosaurs. Or wait, they were probably Creationist too who just make everything up.

[Tycoon]

Actually, I don't think T-Rex was as frightening as the movies make him out to be for several reasons. First, the scientist who specialize in studying T-Rex say there is a problem with him having been a predator. He has very long teeth with very shallow roots. Most scientists now believe that, if he were to sink his teeth into another animal to kill it, after the first bite, he would have to gum the animal to death because his teeth would all be pulled out with that first bite.

Hahahaha!! That's taken off of your first website. I'm not even going to waste my time.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo I'm not aware that there have been any such artifacts found. You would have to tell us about them. Without knowing more, however, I would have to say that any such artifacts are fake or incorrectly interpreted since dinosaurs, except for birds, died out about 65 million years ago. No such footprints have ever been found. Some creationists have been taken in by carvings made and sold to tourists during the depression. Most notably, Mr. Carl Baugh and Mr. Don Patton (Both have awarded themselves bogus Ph.D. degrees) tout the Burdick print as somehow being that of a giant. Any fool who has ever seen a human footprint can easily see that the Burdick print is a fake. Moreover, the claimed tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River all turned out to be dinosaur tracks. Not even Baugh continues to claim that a single one of his original "man tracks" is human. Instead, he now claims to find "man tracks" inside the tracks of dinosaurs. If you are gullible enough, you might fall for that. I've seen the tracks. I'm not sure what you mean by 'fully "evolved" man'. But no matter, even an "incompletely evolved" man living with dinosaurs would discredit the theory of evolution. I'm not sure what artifacts have to do with dinosaurs. How does a man made object show us anything about dinosaurs? Why are archaeologists studying dinosaurs? What does the study of human life and culture from the past have to do with dinosaurs? What a load! They lied to you and you believed it. Is it actually necessary to debunk such an idea? Even if it were true, what does it show about dinosaurs or the age of humans? Again, I'm not sure what a 'fully "evolved" human' is. Creationists don't even seem to be able to decide which hominid fossils are human and which are not. The same creationist often has a difficult time deciding. For example, in 1992 Paul S. Taylor declared that both Java Man and Peking Man were apes. In 1995 he claimed that Java Man was an ape while Peking Man had somehow become human. By 1996, both Java Man and Peking Man were human. He didn't indicate if they were "fully evolved" humans or not. Similarly, Duane Gish claimed in 1979 that ER 1470 was human but in 1985 said that it was an ape. So, perhaps you can understand my confusion about what you might mean when you talk about "fully evolved" humans. I wasn't aware that there was a condition for any organism that made it "fully evolved." Also, you seem to scorn religion by trying to reduce the science of biology to a matter of belief without evidence. Such is the nature of religion. I can assure you that biology is not my faith any more than physics or geology are. They aren't really what they are claimed to be. Guys like Baugh and Patton depend on the gullible faithful. Why? What does it have to do with dinosaurs or evolution? What reality is that? Wouldn't it be nice if you actually took a science course and made an effort to learn? Can you give me some examples? Are geology and physics also religions? I'm sure that isn't the reason that Halofan48 'disregards' your so called 'evidence'. I'm sure that he actually has some science education and isn't gullible enough to fall for such claims. How open minded of you to claim that evolution is a religion, and as such, tries to force the "evidence." Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Forcing invented evidence in the name of your religion of creationism?

I thought I would rejoin this long winded debate. Gallo and I debated this same topic a long time ago. I even provided links to those pottery items that showed dinos and humans living together ... under a ufo that was in the sky. The hoax was quickly disproven as being real artifects by other qualified investigators. But yet, the hoax lives on as if it is protected by some sort of unseen shield. Which is the strong need to believe it. I also mentioned the foot prints next to dino prints. I do not recall the right words but it is possible to imprint such slabs at different ages in history, or they might be another hoax. A lot of knowledgable people join in our debate and frankly, I lost. Gallo won. And those debates are still located somewhere here at Volconvo, it is a shame he must continue to re-hash the same-o same-o rebuttles. I think that thread had to do with the Creationist Musem.

[Jack]

From that same site:

Research and Findings * Coming Soon

Let's all hold our breath waiting for that, OK?

[Technosoul]

I am rejoining this debate.

One point of reasoning used by Creationists is the observation that life forms are sometimes dependant on each other for survival.

One example is the bee and the flower. I doubt if one could survive without the other. Although butterflies and hummingbirds might replace bees, they are few in number as compared to the bee population. anyway, I will not go into depth about why they are so co-dependant on each other, you should know that already.

That fact would suggest that they both had to come into existance at the same time. Is that evidence of instant creation, or could such co-dependancy evolve into exsistance in a random manner? In addition to that example of co-dependancy as a survial system we have no fosil evidence of flowers or bees exsisting prior to the close of the dinosaur era, no evidence of a slow and progressive transformation as recorded in fosil evidence. (correct me if I am wrong). Suddenly we had flowers and bees as the warm blooded mammals came into domination.

[gallo]

Quote by: navyrkh Halofan48 check out this site about the possibility of humans surviving with dinosaurs Dinosaurs And Man? . gallo try Dinosaurs and Man - Home and explain how and why ancient people would draw pictures and make pottery showing dinosaurs.

Are you talking about Ica stones? They were carved by known individuals to sell to creationist dupes. Really, I thought that you had realized that just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is true. There needs to be something more than claims.

Or wait, they were probably Creationist too who just make everything up.

OK. So you do understand.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo Are you talking about Ica stones? They were carved by known individuals to sell to creationist dupes. Really, I thought that you had realized that just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is true. There needs to be something more than claims. OK. So you do understand.

Acturally they were to be used by a company who films those "mystery"
specials for TV. Because the pottery had a ufo flying above the men with the dinosaurs it was going to be one of those mystery programs about aliens in primitive times. The person was hawking the pottery on the streets but somehow a few samples ended up at some musem down in Mexico or someplace, filed away in the back room as "un-interesting". Then someone roaming around the musem found them and imagined a conspiracy to "cover up" evidence that science did not want to be exposed because it does not fit their ideas about evolution, etc.
Other people got interested but no one could find the secret caves where the person claims to have dug up the pottery in. The film was rejected by TV programers and never aired. Later sold on the internet. (plus a book).

So if you believe that the pottery is for real and therefore people lived in harmony with dinosaurs, then you must also believe that UFOs were flying around in the sky, dropping off humans like manna from heaven. It was fun, but did not sound very scientific to me or worthy of a highschool text on Creationism or ID.