Creationism vs. Evolution

[Capitalist Pig]

For some reason, this graphic makes me laugh.

[white rice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
If we can create a living cell from derivative organic compounds, then that would be a truly astonishing accomplishment. But the theories of spontaneous generation of life during primordial earth is very speculative.

We can assume that Macroevolution is happening by refering to geological records, genetic and anatomical comparisons with different groups but we don't really know how it is happening or how long it takes.

Maybe future generations will be more fortunate, but for now, no one really knows the answers to the essential questions to the origin of life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Considering that life formed other millions of years and inorder to reproduce those conditions in the lab we'd need an area which is equal to surface area of the earth. I'd say the chances of recreating an actual cell is rather slim. Not impossible, as it has happened, but improbable.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Even if we could make a supercomputer that simulated with total accuracy of earths prehistoric conditions, I don't think the chances for life being made and constantly evolve in that model are high. The stuff that goes on in living things is pretty wild the further you study it. I believe there is life on other planets, but it requires significant leaps of faith or assumptions to know how it really started.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)


For some reason, this graphic makes me laugh.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Ah, talkorigins, damn good site.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)

Even if we could make a supercomputer that simulated with total accuracy of earths prehistoric conditions, I don't think the chances for life being made and constantly evolve in that model are high. The stuff that goes on in living things is pretty wild the further you study it. I believe there is life on other planets, but it requires significant leaps of faith or assumptions to know how it really started.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
We don't even know the full variables yet, so for both skeptic and researcher, there's little to go on. Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and I'm not pushing it as a full theory, yet.

[mikemadman]

While there are still "holes" in the theory of evolution its still the best bet we got going right now. There is just too much evidence pointing to the fact the life mutates and evolves. Look at the Galapagos Islands or Madagascar (excuse the spelling), where we have species of animals that have evolved into new animals to cope with the living enviroments. You see this everywhere in nature, animals adpapting to there suroundings to make them better hunters, gatherers, builders, etc...

We even see this in humans, take the Inuit people. They have evolved to cope better with the cold weather. MSNBC News Story.

So I think there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution, but we still have a lot to learn about the origins of life.

[Capitalist Pig]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mikemadman,)
Look at the Galapagos Islands or Madagascar (excuse the spelling), where we have species of animals that have evolved into new animals to cope with the living enviroments.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>While I agree with the basic message of your post, I would be careful about the language used to describe evolution. Animals evolving into "new" animals plays on the Creationist misconception that evolution describes rapid change from one species to another, such as a frog sprouting wings and becoming a bird, or a human undergoing metamorphosis into a chicken.

[Anarchist Patriot]

People who argue for creationism are modern variants of the same people who argued the earth is flat. I find the whole argument absurd. What is to say that evelution is not the way God intended. Bible literalists are clueless.

[Meatros]

I agree with you Anarchist Patriot...Nice username, BTW...

[mbrock59]

Problem is, there seems to be several variations on theories of evolution and creationism.
Darwin's original ideas have been expounded on, and "intelligent design" theory is now gaining acceptance in the creation circles.
the arguements tend to expound rather than narrow with new information.

[jpapadpapa]

You know, I think statements like this are completely unfair:

"People who argue for creationism are modern variants of the same people who argued the earth is flat. I find the whole argument absurd. What is to say that evelution is not the way God intended. Bible literalists are clueless."

To me, this speaks volumes at how much research this person has done into the argument that Bible literalists make for creationism. There are many highly intellegent scientists that are also creationists, but most people don't hear of them. I think everyone should have open minds and at least be willing to look at both sides instead of belittling others and acting arrogant just because they disagree. Check out these links and see if maybe they give you some good questions you haven't thought of yet.

http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

[jpapadpapa]

Also, I find it very interesting that Gunboat Diplomat has chosen a quote by Einstein for his signature line. Here's a little more information about Einstein that is very apropos to our discussion:

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

The above quote was taken from the following link: http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/Fa...Scientists.html

[Meatros]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
To me, this speaks volumes at how much research this person has done into the argument that Bible literalists make for creationism. There are many highly intellegent scientists that are also creationists, but most people don't hear of them. I think everyone should have open minds and at least be willing to look at both sides instead of belittling others and acting arrogant just because they disagree. Check out these links and see if maybe they give you some good questions you haven't thought of yet.

http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Actually, at least in my case, you would be wrong. I've read creationist literature and a few years ago I actually was a YEC.

Your statement that there are *many* highly intelligent scientists who are creationists is incorrect. Unless you think .14% is "many": Poll.

As for your websites, none of them publish scientifically peer-reviewed journals and many of the people on AiG engage in not only shotty research but occasionally down right falsities.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
You know, I think statements like this are completely unfair:

"People who argue for creationism are modern variants of the same people who argued the earth is flat. I find the whole argument absurd. What is to say that evelution is not the way God intended. Bible literalists are clueless."

To me, this speaks volumes at how much research this person has done into the argument that Bible literalists make for creationism. There are many highly intellegent scientists that are also creationists, but most people don't hear of them. I think everyone should have open minds and at least be willing to look at both sides instead of belittling others and acting arrogant just because they disagree. Check out these links and see if maybe they give you some good questions you haven't thought of yet.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I am a geologist and I have looked closely at the claims of Creationists that oppose evolution for many years. There science is not real science. The base there arguement on the assumption that Genesis is literally correct and then look for individual pieces of scientific evidence they belive supports their view and create doubts of Darwinian Evolution. This logic does not fit the 'Scientific Method'.

I will submit individual examples of this bogus and selective use of scientific evidence upon request.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
You know, I think statements like this are completely unfair:

"People who argue for creationism are modern variants of the same people who argued the earth is flat. I find the whole argument absurd. What is to say that evelution is not the way God intended. Bible literalists are clueless."

To me, this speaks volumes at how much research this person has done into the argument that Bible literalists make for creationism. There are many highly intellegent scientists that are also creationists, but most people don't hear of them. I think everyone should have open minds and at least be willing to look at both sides instead of belittling others and acting arrogant just because they disagree. Check out these links and see if maybe they give you some good questions you haven't thought of yet.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

An interesting book on the evaluation of the Creationist viewpoint is:

[color=red]Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [/color]by Philip Kitcher

[jpapadpapa]

I simply don't have the time to get into another online discussion that will be entirely unprofitable. Most people already have their minds made up about what they choose to believe, so no matter what facts are presented, it will not matter. It really all comes down to faith and I believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution.

[shunyadragon]

It is unfortunate we haven't had any hardcore 'Creationists' enter the debate with serious arguements from there viewpoint.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Also, I find it very interesting that Gunboat Diplomat has chosen a quote by Einstein for his signature line. Here's a little more information about Einstein that is very apropos to our discussion:

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I don't think this quote supports the Fundimentalist Creationist view. It is more in line with Darwin's and the Baha'i view that Creation is in harmony with the Scientific evidence.

[jpapadpapa]

Also, Meatros, the percentage you gave is incorrect according to the site you linked to. It's 5% of scientists. While that is still not a majority, it is still a significant number when you consider that most of the media talks about evolution as though it were fact. Also, what the majority believes does not make something true or false, though human nature likes to conform, so we often simply accept what the majority says. I find that most truth in life is not accepted by the majority anyway. As I pointed out before, brilliant minds such as Einstein have been creationists. I find it a little hard to believe that Einstein would have accepted logic that "does not fit the 'Scientific Method'."

As for your offer, Shunyadragon, to "submit individual examples of this bogus and selective use of scientific evidence upon request," I don't doubt that for every one of those examples, I could come up with my own from the other perspective. That does not prove anything except that some people make poor arguments. That does not disprove creationism.

[jpapadpapa]

"It is unfortunate we haven't had any hardcore 'Creationists' enter the debate with serious arguements from there [sic] viewpoint."

LOL!

I find this hillarious! It is so obvious to me that you are baiting me to get into a pointless argument with you. Are you saying that if I stayed here and debated this issue with you that you would actually listen with an open mind? Do you really think there is any way that you might be able to change your mind? I sincerely doubt it. There is plenty of information all over the internet about this topic and much of it is explained far better than I could ever explain it. Therefore, I really think what you would like to do here is to make me look stupid in front of whomever is reading this discussion. I am a serious "creationist," but I am no fool. (BTW, "there" should be spelled "their".)

[G. Adams]

jpapadpapa, what do you think this website is for? It's not for propaganda (though I'd be lying if I said I wasn't trying to convert to you all into reds...) or for changing minds, it's for arguing and debating and occaisionally beating each other with verbal sticks. So please, put your argument forward.