Evolution, creation or something else?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

u claim that creationist dont use facts and scientific method, well theres a creationist actually using facts and u shut it down before u can see it for urself

 

Oh I watched it, and I found it to be extremely humorous. There was nothing that hasn't been said, and disproved, before.

[Meshugger]

Where's the insult? That the claim of the foundation of creationism is insidious and non-scientific? I never called you any names or even insulted you personally.

[seejai]

nevermind.... im mostly talking to myself. like i said, i need sleep. i wasnt refering to u anyway

[Deadly_Nightshade]

you have no idea how different faith and religion are. religion is rules. and faith is... faith. personal. i dont seem to be getting anything i said read with any.... openmindness

 

I ind it ironic that you're complaining that people are close-minded to your ideas while you're refusing to acknowledge that ours are logical and proven. There is no clear cut evidence of an instant creation. Books and scripture is NOT evidence, let me re stress this fact, they are NOT evidence. Books are written by man, man can LIE, or make fairy tales, its what man was good at for several millenia anyway, and still are to this very day. No tangible proof, no evidence, nothing. I will not commit my time to a Lord who very well might not exist, because it wastes my time. I believe in Humans, and creatures, and though humans may be flawed and malcontent at times, I believe we are the very thing we have created.

 

i refuse to read that bc i hate doctrine and religion. dont think im a person who is religious. im something else entirely. well they maybe not giving it a fair hearing but hey it seems mutual. since you wouldnt even look at it and i bet if you did like i said you cant just put the fact that its christian behind you and look at the scientific facts. u claim that creationist dont use facts and scientific method, well theres a creationist actually using facts and u shut it down before u can see it for urself

 

Creationism USES RELIGION, PREFERABLY CHRISTIANITY AS ITS DOGMA when trying to prove that there's an invisible creator behind everything. They cherry-pick parts of science wherever it fits them. It's against the very philosophy that we call the scientific method.

 

i think creationism is based off the bible and i think ur confusing the bible for religion.

 

You know only the fabrications you have read and deduced. Your suppositions are not reasonable, tangible or testable; therefore you cannot justly say you "know" anything about it. We all know the stories and you repeating them does not strengthen the case. We all perceive it as we wish and that is our prerogative. When I say show me evidence you show me unproven stories and romantic fantasies. Your deductions and perceptions are not proof. I want evidence that is proved to the extent that it can be proven. Wherein, I am asking for tangible evidence not more "insight" into fictional stories.

[seejai]

wow im so tired i just decided that i dont care. i've been talking for an hr but it doesnt really matter bc there are things like starving children and wars that are more energy worthy. obviously we are here and um yeah. save the whales!!!! before they evolve in to a blubber lamp.... or something

[seejai]

we've crossed the line. i didint know evolution was proven! isnt it a theory which is a explanation with backing facts.

when we start dealing with absolutes thats when i leave. but if not deal with absolutes... why talk. then theres no... conclusion of anysort

AND ive allready said several times that there is no "proof" for creationist. not the scientific facts u want

Edited July 19, 2007 by seejai

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Well, it was fun while it lasted...

[seejai]

yep lots. we'll have to do it again sometime in the meantime i'll sleep and find tangible facts or something of that sort

[seejai]

wow u know im tired when im bidding my farewells to ppl in a thread that ive been making my attempt at debating with for the past hr lol

[Deadly_Nightshade]

isnt it a theory which is a explanation with backing facts.

 

If we used your logic gravity would also be called into question, as there is at least as much -if not more- evidence for evolution.

[seejai]

like i said, lol, im gonna do something more worthwhile

[seejai]

isnt it a theory which is a explanation with backing facts.

 

If we used your logic gravity would also be called into question, as there is at least as much -if not more- evidence for evolution.

 

oh boy u found evidence that works for u. u win!!! *gives cupcake*.... did u forget that i dont care anymore. u got ur cupcake, we're both obviously hard headed and bad at debating bc nothing was proved to the other

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Good, as it's already 3:44 a.m. here and I need to be somewhere at 7:00 a.m.. Thus, I am going to be getting off for the early morning and getting a few hours of sleep...

[seejai]

yep. i have work tho not as early. its 2:30 here. sleep tight and dont let the bed bugs bight!!!! (im not high im just tired)

[Gorgon]

**** I stepped on my glasses, again. Now I can't see well enough to write

[Walsingham]

**** I stepped on my glasses, again. Now I can't see well enough to write

 

These board colours make my eyes hurt anyway.

[metadigital]

The Bible is not proof of creationism. It is an account of creationism based on conjecture and the understanding of the world and universe in the mindset of a primitive being who had no idea why it rained, why fire hurts, nor what causes him to get sick.

what i am trying to say is that if you have faith in God its obviously proof enough for you. im talking more about beliefs which we dont need to go into

 

. if you want proof for creation u'd have to read the bible with an open mind which i doubt most of you are willing to do so if you want proof, this is prolly the wrong topic

 

The bible offers proof of only one thing, and that is not of creation.

 

 

and i think you need to read alot of the bible to judge if it was written by men....

What if I told you I have read "a lot" of the bible?

 

in that case maybe i ment that u need faith but faith isnt a scientifical fact so that answer wont work for you

 

well since i know my point of view has been said and its not really making an impact and no offense but im not sure of the point of this topic bc i know we'll never really agree or anything but its been interesting sharing opinions with yall and i think you need to read alot of the bible to judge if it was written by men.... well with that said im going to go swim or something so have fun doing what ur doing

I've probably read more of the Bible than you have.

 

like i said, you need faith to believe it but I do and theres no doubt in my mind about it. even if i cant prove it to you. like i said, as much as we try, this is for the most part a proofless topic. and im not just saying oh read the bible bc jesus loves you! when i havnt my self. because i have read it and i think whats important is that you can find a "theory" or whateve you want to call it and believe that that is the truth. i have and i dont have to spend so much time on doubts

 

and i dont think all creationist fail to understand the scientific method. some do but then again im sure there are evolutionist that fail to understand. maybe creationist are blinded by there beliefs. but to say that all do is an absolute...

No, you are making a false equivalence between REASON and religious belief.

 

The BIG DIFFERENCE is that scientists base their beliefs on observable phenomena, rather than "divine revelation", so that (at any time, given sufficient cause) a scientist can and SHOULD change their mind according to the evidence (i.e. when the questions and methods become more precise to provide better answers), viz.:

Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by 'truth'. But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.

 

It is all to easy to confuse fundamentalism with passion. I may well appear passionate when I defend evolution against a fundamentalist creationist, but this is not because of a rival fundamentalism of my own. It is because the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong and I am passionately distressed that my opponent can't see it -- or, more usually, refuses to look at it because it contradicts his holy book. My passion is increased when I think about how much the poor fundamentalist, and those whom they influence, are missing. The truths of evolution, along with many other scientific truths, are so engrossingly fascinating and beautiful; how truly tragic to die having missed out on all that! Of course that makes me passionate. How could it not? But my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming.

 

It does happen. I previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall shook the American by the hand and said -- with passion -- 'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.' We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that. In practise, not all scientists would. But all scientists play lip service to it as an ideal -- unlike, say, politicians who would probably condemn it as flip-flopping.

[metadigital]

I'm still having some trouble understanding natural selection, or rather how it works against the belief of a higher power. Can you elaborate?

 

Great Luther and Galileo quotes, by the way.

Dawkins uses an excellent analogy he calls "climbing Mount Improbable". Mount Improbable has a sheer cliff on one side, which is the phenomena that we wish to explain, such as the organ of sight (the eye), which seems almost impossibly difficult to imagine being created out of nothing (represented by the sheer cliff). On the other side of Mount Improbable is a steady, even gradient, whereby, rather than a leap of faith, we can progress slowly, by microscopic improvements, up the slope from ground level. This side represents natural selection, demonstrating how small random changes in this generation can build upon the cumulative best changes of the past, to create the bridge to the phenomena.

 

Does that help?

[Hurlshort]

I'm still having some trouble understanding natural selection, or rather how it works against the belief of a higher power. Can you elaborate?

 

Great Luther and Galileo quotes, by the way.

Dawkins uses an excellent analogy he calls "climbing Mount Improbable". Mount Improbable has a sheer cliff on one side, which is the phenomena that we wish to explain, such as the organ of sight (the eye), which seems almost impossibly difficult to imagine being created out of nothing (represented by the sheer cliff). On the other side of Mount Improbable is a steady, even gradient, whereby, rather than a leap of faith, we can progress slowly, by microscopic improvements, up the slope from ground level. This side represents natural selection, demonstrating how small random changes in this generation can build upon the cumulative best changes of the past, to create the bridge to the phenomena.

 

Does that help?

 

It does, but what about the point of origin? I'm not claiming to go along with the Genesis style of creationism, I'm just questioning how it all began.

 

It is a matter of faith, that we can all agree on. Someone had mentioned that, as a skeptical person, faith just isn't enough to get by on. I can see that. I'm skeptical myself about car salesmen and telemarketers, but when it comes to life and death, I'm a bit more inclined to have faith in something greater than myself. Maybe it won't matter in the end, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. I don't know why that's considered crazy by those without faith, it seems fairly reasonable to me.

[Nick_i_am]

 

Best. Smily. Ever.

 

ok u should try to watch this video. it doesnt directly promote creationism but it shows really skeptical things about evolution. dont shut it down immediatly. i thought it was interesting. ok i predict that if anyone watches it they will say oh the bible thumper is making excuses. u dont have to say it i know ur thinking it. but its worth it to watch. if u are completely anti creationist, just listen to the facts on evolution and block the rest out.

 

http://www.multimediaapologetics.com/multi...tion_Video.html

 

Wait, this video is a pile of poop, it's basically trying to 'prove' that evoultion doesn't exist by exactly the same methods that people use to 'prove' that god doesn't exist.

 

On one hand it doesn't support strict creationism due to the achnoledgement of the world and the creatures on it being millions of years old, but despite this, never talks about where these animals DID come from if they didn't evolve over millions of years, or didn't just pop out of dust 4000 years ago in the guarden of Eden. It's a mishmash of highly strung language putting togeather all the vaige loopholes and out of context quotes he can find. 'No intermittant forms' is pure butt, as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm talks about. And while, in this case, we're not seeing the birth of a new species, what we are seeing is a change in a species that gives it a destinct advantage over other species that would share the same fate, and the video refuses to address this issue. Since the video also accounts for the existance of prehistoric animals, it conveniantly makes no attempt to explain the stark simularities between new species with old ones. Is it a pure cooincidence that chickens share a huge amount of the bone structure with velocoraptors and their ilk, or were proto-humans also just a coincidence, and modern humans came out of nowhere. Hell, it doesn't even explain why there are such vast differances just in one species, or why just humans have changed so much just over the past few thousand years, becoming taller and bigger brained.

The thermo dynamics stuff is crap too, since life DOES get more chaotic over time. Generally it's called old age.

It doesn't even properly support intelligent design, by not suggesting that change DOES happen over time, via GOD POWER .

 

 

Actually, it just seems to be trying to annoy everyone since it doesn't actually support any of them, and instead just flings around random quotes, comes up with some unrelated physics crap then says 'LOOK HOW COMPLEX THIS CREATURE IS, DO YOU THINK THAT'S AN ACCIDENT?! WELL DO YOU?!'

Edited July 19, 2007 by Nick_i_am

[Sand]

The Bible is not proof of creationism. It is an account of creationism based on conjecture and the understanding of the world and universe in the mindset of a primitive being who had no idea why it rained, why fire hurts, nor what causes him to get sick.

what i am trying to say is that if you have faith in God its obviously proof enough for you. im talking more about beliefs which we dont need to go into

 

 

Faith is not proof.

[taks]

isnt it a theory which is a explanation with backing facts.

 

If we used your logic gravity would also be called into question, as there is at least as much -if not more- evidence for evolution.

not necessarily. gravity is considered law simply because it is observed and always happens. this is one of the few cases where something can actually be proved. now, the mechanism which drives gravity is still unknown, and may never be. this was one of einstein's hopes: to pull together gravity with relativity (part of the grand unification scheme, and he hated the quark view of the world, btw).

 

that said, i think people are getting even more wrapped around the "theory" axle that i did (during my pedantist rants earlier). theory is pretty solid, and, probably as close to "fact" as you can get without actually being voted fact (or law). if something becomes a theory, that means it has been tested to death, and few, if any, cracks in the underlying hypothesis can be found. in other words, it's not just "explanation with backing facts," it's "hypothesis with an overwhelming body of evidence, observed, measured, and tested, to support it." big difference between those two statements.

 

i should add, creationism is an hypothesis. it can never progress beyond that as all of its assumptions are untestable. it could very well lie at the beginning of all of evolution (as has been discussed), but we cannot observe, nor test that part of it. with the exception of the very beginning of the evolution process, nearly all of it can be observed or tested.

 

taks

Edited July 19, 2007 by taks

[Archmonarch]

So, the fact that there is a preponderance material that we use for life (including organic but not forgetting heavy atomic nuclei material) in the universe means that it was put here purposefully? Surely life evolving out of what is mostly available because it is here makes more sense than putting the cart before the horse like your logic demands.

 

I am not talking about the universe in general but our specific solar system. Since I do not know about the whole universe it would be silly to make such claims about it as a whole, so I am limiting to what I know, right here in our backyard, so to speak.

 

Theia -The Giant Impact Hypothesis

[Sand]

So, Theia struck the earth and we have the moon? So, we have two planetary bodies collide which only one is destroyed and we get a moon out of it. What are the chances of that?

[Hurlshort]

So, Theia struck the earth and we have the moon? So, we have two planetary bodies collide which only one is destroyed and we get a moon out of it. What are the chances of that?

 

1 in 278, to be exact.