Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[mpjh]

Weak minds are often easily swayed.

[Snorri1234]

An educated population is essential to having a functioning democracy, but this particular issue has no relevance. The time could better be spent teaching more useful and less divisive topics.

Actually it's pretty damn important. It's not so much the topic itself but the idea behind it. Math, biology, chemistry and physics all intertwine in it.

It's about science, and the scientific method.

Scientist: take the evidence. attempt to formulate a theroy covering the evidence. Think about what would prove or disprove the theory so far. Do experiments or otherwise seek such information. Rethink theory as necessary.

Creationist: Read accepted authority. Believe it. Look for supporting evidence. Look for a way to explain away any non-supporting evidence. Never rethink position.

Indeed, it's a way of teaching people to be critical and use evidence. Don't ignore evidence contrary to your ideology, question everything and use rational thought to distinguish fact from fiction. If these are not things people should use in political circles, then I wonder what they should use. Faithbased policy backfired fucking hard with Bush. (And I don't mean his belief in creationism, but his belief in his own particular political ideology.)

[Neoteny]

I <3 this thread.

[john9blue]

Wow, this thread is like a cockroach... it just won't die.

[jonesthecurl]

Doesn't evolve either...

[john9blue]

At least we get a Word from its creator from time to time....

[HapSmo19]

Weak minds are often easily swayed.

I hear ya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg ... xt_from=PL

[Neoteny]

[daddy1gringo]

Fine, I'd love to see your evidence. Join me in Real U... or keep posting here.

Really, there is so much question-begging and bad logic in your post that I'll have to come back and deal with it later. That is MY field

Mine as well ... bring it on!
there is no failure in my logic... at all!

I'm not chickening out; it's just that there's a lot to say and I'm going to be a little busy for a bit. I will get back to you when I can.

[joecoolfrog]

Fine, I'd love to see your evidence. Join me in Real U... or keep posting here.

Really, there is so much question-begging and bad logic in your post that I'll have to come back and deal with it later. That is MY field

Mine as well ... bring it on!
there is no failure in my logic... at all!

I'm not chickening out; it's just that there's a lot to say and I'm going to be a little busy for a bit. I will get back to you when I can.

Yes Young Earth Creationists have a lot to say but ultimately produce zero evidence to back up their claims that the World is less than 10,000 years old. They take great glee in picking holes in isolated points ( whilst ignoring 99.9% of opposing evidence) but when asked to back up their views they have nothing except a literal belief in the wording of Genesis..........nothing at all. A perfect example of their duplicity in arguement are fossils which they claim cannot be dated correctly so they cannot be used as evidence, of course this would also mean that they cannot prove they fit the creationist time line but they of course dont push that inconvenient fact. They have no evidence to support their position so simply try to muddy the waters hoping to spread doubt about conventional scientific knowledge, even worse they try to suppress that Knowledge by use of geared homeschooling for children..........hardly very Christian is it

[PLAYER57832]

At least we get a Word from its creator from time to time....

Funny thing is, so do I .. only it tells me to seek truth, not simply accept what a few people have told me is true without verification.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't assert the fossil evidence supports evolution because "someone told me". I believe because I have seen transition fossil after transition fossil, I have seen the geologic strata replicated throughout our country ... and pictures from elsewhere in the world.

I know (not simply believe) that Noah's flood could not possibly have created the Grand Canyon, because I have studied streams and floods for years. I also studied erosion in dry climates to a lesser extent. The evidence shows the grand canyon was created by erosion over a very, very long time.

I have not personally done tests on rock formation, but I have read enough of the published scientific journal accounts to know that geologists understand much of the process.

The Creation science, to contrast, is always based on poor evidence, misinformation and misunderstandings of scientific concepts.

A classic is the way the second law of Thermodynamics is used. Over twenty years ago, I was hearing fellow college students assert that complex structures "could not form" because it violated the second law. (never mind that work, added energy and structure make it possible). I also heard them declare that dinosaurs were "imaginary", that the fossils perporting to be dinosaurs were living animals that were misconstrued to be non-existant ones. At the time, I was dumbfounded, but paid it little mind (like most scientists did) because I could not see how intelligent, educated people could really and truly believe that stuff. They would learn the truth. In fact, I helped more than one student of paleontology and biology reconcile their conflict because they realized that scientists WERE telling the truth.

Now, Creation science has changed its tune ...a LOT. In that itself, is no problem. Except, before they were proclaiming not "we don't know".. we think this, we believe this evidence wrong and expect to find proof". They were asserting that they HAD proof that all the scientists were just wrong. A BIG differance!

Anyway, so, they made mistakes back then ... move on to now, 30 or so years later. Now dinosaurs did occur, they are even mentioned in the Bible (greatly disputed by most Hebrew scholars, but it is the Creationist assertion and Dr. Morris can cite some scholars who agree with him). However, they were killed off by the flood. Never mind that this is not shown by the fossil evidence. There was not just one big die-off, but several die-offs and subsequent broadcast/expansion of species.
Nor were they by any means all caused by floods. Some fossils did accumulate in flood zones. Just like today, some animals die in water, in other case the remains simply wind up in the streams after death. (either dragged there by feeding animals, are reached by a flood, even follow erosion).

In some cases, we know this to be true because the evidence so exactly matched modern day events it simply defies reason to believe it happened another way. In some cases, scientists make educated guesses. In others they don't know exactly how things might have happened, but DO know that the earth just has to be more than 100,000 years old.

It is like the criticisms of radiometric datings, etc. Creationists are quick to point out the the techniques are not precise (true) but then proceed to deny the very real evidence that these techniques do give a broad, general indication of time AND that this has been verified by other means. Some times dates are inexact, but we know that this layer proceed that layer...etc. If you know that, then if you can date even a small piece, the rest falls into place. Creationists deny this even exists.

THAT is the real criticism and why Creationism is NOT any longer being accepted or tolerated, because they insist on not just asserting their beliefs, but in declaring things KNOWN to be true ... to be false, declare evidence that exists is "no there" or grasp on HUGE misunderstandings and try to assert that more proof should be there if...

As in IF species really did transition from one to another, why aren't there MORE transition fossils (though note, the Institute for Creation Research states over and over that Transition fossils of any kind simply don't exist, when pushed, Creationists may sometimes accept a few, but claim they are "misinterpreted" ... and then press on to demand more precise transitions). Yet, per evolution, transitions are almost always temporary, short-term species. It the species survived well in the transition form, it would probably not have transitioned (there are exceptions, but in general that is the case ... NOTE I did not say the original species had to die off, I said the transition species genrally is less likely to survive long). ALL fossils are few and far between. The process necessary to make a fossil is extremely narrow and limited. In many ways, it is amazing that we have any fossils, never mind these transition species that are of a far shorter duration to begin with.

Creation Scientists want to pick and choose which evidence they accept and which evidence they do not. When evidence benefits them, it is accepted. When it does not.. it is dismissed, but NOT because there is less credibility, because the process to obtain this "questioned" evidence really is less, SOLELY because it does not fit the picture they wish to present. In fact, they are happy to accept very shakey, unverified or heavily disputed evidence if it matches their belief system, while completely dismissing the most verified of information and evidence that disputes their claims.

THAT is why Creationists are coming under Criticism.

And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Again, despite the many claims to the contrary, the overwhelming majority of Christians accept scientific data of all kinds, including that which supports Evolutionary theory. However, again, Creationists have a neat answer to that.... if you accept Evolution, you cannot be a "true Christian". Neat package, that!

[pimpdave]

Very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c

[daddy1gringo]

Still indulges in the unscientific practice starting with the conclusion you want to reach as a premise, then finding what you want to find to support it. Oh, wait, I thought it was the creationists who did that.

[MeDeFe]

Still indulges in the unscientific practice starting with the conclusion you want to reach as a premise, then finding what you want to find to support it. Oh, wait, I thought it was the creationists who did that.

What are you talking about?

If it's the contents of the video: Someone (or a team of people) came up with the hypothesis based on what was already known about genetics, new evidence supporting the hypothesis emerges, no evidence is ignored. What's the problem?

[comic boy]

Still indulges in the unscientific practice starting with the conclusion you want to reach as a premise, then finding what you want to find to support it. Oh, wait, I thought it was the creationists who did that.

What are you talking about?

If it's the contents of the video: Someone (or a team of people) came up with the hypothesis based on what was already known about genetics, new evidence supporting the hypothesis emerges, no evidence is ignored. What's the problem?

1) The problem is that it doesn't fit his agenda.

2) He is simply changing the subject to avoid the previous pertinent points made by Player and others,

3) As the frog said these guys have no evidence to prove their point so they simply try to rubbish all other views........ I suppose such desperation proves that deep down they know they are talking a load of nonsense

[PLAYER57832]

Still indulges in the unscientific practice starting with the conclusion you want to reach as a premise, then finding what you want to find to support it. Oh, wait, I thought it was the creationists who did that.

How, exactly did I do that?

[PLAYER57832]

........ I suppose such desperation proves that deep down they know they are talking a load of nonsense

No, they really believe what they put forth... and a big part of the blame has to be laid at the feet of scientists who have gotten lazy and no longer feel it is really necessary to keep explaining why things are considered proven.

It IS "reinventing the wheel" to present over and over evidence, but as these folks show ... it is very necessary.

And I am STILL waiting for ANYONE to present all this "evidence" that is supposed to exist. Nothing on the Creation Science websites comes even close... so I ask again WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE?

[IrishAnnie]

You know, I'm a strong Christian and I believe v. strongly in the Creation story. But I wouldn't ever say that I was 'taken in'. I'm actually a pretty easy person to 'take in' per-se, but I really believe that Creation Science is true. I've seen documentaries and such that have seemed to prove it for me, also, to say that evolution is true is to say that there is no God. And I KNOW that God is there. I know it in my mind--but more than that I know it in my HEART.

[Snorri1234]

You know, I'm a strong Christian and I believe v. strongly in the Creation story. But I wouldn't ever say that I was 'taken in'. I'm actually a pretty easy person to 'take in' per-se, but I really believe that Creation Science is true. I've seen documentaries and such that have seemed to prove it for me,

Then you're a gullible idiot.

also, to say that evolution is true is to say that there is no God.

Not true.

[PLAYER57832]

You know, I'm a strong Christian and I believe v. strongly in the Creation story. But I wouldn't ever say that I was 'taken in'. I'm actually a pretty easy person to 'take in' per-se, but I really believe that Creation Science is true. I've seen documentaries and such that have seemed to prove it for me,

The Institute for Creation Science and those who support it have produced some wonderful looking documentaries, TV programs and books. Believing it does NOT make you "gullible". It does mean you have never been taught REAL and true Evolutionary theory and that you have been taught evidence that really exists (such as MANY, MANY transition fossils do not exist), that evidence that "should" be present is not (more fossils, etc.) and that many things that are here could not possibly have come about purely by chance. (from the hemoglobin molecules, to a fossil of a fish eating another fish, to the Grand Canyon... all are quite well explained by real science backed by evidence)

That last is the most deceptive argument of all, because the REAL truth is that even the most atheistic of Evolutionary biologists does not truly claim everything happened in pure mathematically random fashion. (Structure builds structure builds structure ... is the very short version).

BUT far more importantly, the OVERWHELMING majority of people who accept and HAVE ACCEPTED Evolution throughout history are Christians... along with a good many Jews and Muslims who happen to read the same book of Genesis.

also, to say that evolution is true is to say that there is no God.

ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. The OVERWHELMING majority of people who accept Evolution are and throughout history have believed in God. Not just God, but the God of Genesis. The idea that Genesis says the Earth was created in 6-24 hour periods is the false claim, not Evolution.

And I KNOW that God is there. I know it in my mind--but more than that I know it in my HEART.

SO DO I,

There is not conflict between the BIBLE and Evolution.


AND ... I am STILL awaiting evidence!

[joecoolfrog]

You know, I'm a strong Christian and I believe v. strongly in the Creation story. But I wouldn't ever say that I was 'taken in'. I'm actually a pretty easy person to 'take in' per-se, but I really believe that Creation Science is true. I've seen documentaries and such that have seemed to prove it for me, also, to say that evolution is true is to say that there is no God. And I KNOW that God is there. I know it in my mind--but more than that I know it in my HEART.

The vast majority of Christians have no problem reconciling evolution and a belief in God, do you honestly believe the World is less than 10.000 years old...seriously a couple of biased documentaries against the evidence accumulated by tens of thousands of Scientists with no axe to grind

[jonka]

2) No one today was alive at the formation of the earth, universe, etc.
So any opinion on this point is just an assumption. That brings me to point three.

You've admitted that religion is an assumption in the first post, but that was just a mistake on your part, first of all, Evolution does not deny god, it does not deny all of Creationism, it is merely a theory(you may be confusing the definition of this word with guess, ex. Theory of Gravity). Evolution does not explain anything about how the earth, universe ect. was formed. It is merely change over time. Somebody who believes in evolution only has to accept Natural Selection(this is accepted as a fact and observed by even the most conservative Christian Scientists), that mutations exist (nobody sane or with an IQ greater than 0 is going to disagree with that), as well as that groups within a species can become isolated from each other and reproduce independently.
You can't disprove any of that, christian scientists have tried. Whenever you try to disprove a theory, you only have to come up with one counterexample.

Ex. I believe that you are a snake because you bother me with your typing, but snakes can't type, so my first statement was false, and you are not a snake. See how it works?
Have you ever heard a creationist say 1 thing, that completely disproves Evolution

If you are an open person, perhaps sign up for a class on evolution, it doesn't deny god or the majority of creationism, only one lying sentance "Everything was created the way it is and always will be.", which you probably have realized isn't true, so basicly, you can believe that God create the Heavens and the Earth, and life, and light, and people, and then certain evolutions took place, you do run into contradictions about the fossil record, but then you can realize that God created the earth knowing that it would set evolution in motion.
Thank you if you read this far, I have tried to open your eyes and spent my time that I alloted for my bio homework.

[Neoteny]

I took a class on evolution once. There was a creationist in there (and I suspect more than one, but only she was particularly outspoken about it). Every time she spoke, I cringed, but she knew the material well enough to get a passing grade from the profs. I suppose I can't fault her for that.

[MaleAlphaThree]

Evolution is correct. Why? Because Japanese people think so. When are the Japanese wrong? Never. It's fact. Even when they attacked Pearl Harbor they were correct (about something, I don't know).

When the Japanese finally complete their genetic/robotic science to create tentacle, school girl, ninja, monster trainer, mobile suit, crazy game show demons..... the world will know that the Japanese are the only true rulers of the universe as foretold in the ancient scrolls written by the alien, ganguro girl, samurai, geisha, aikido master, sushi chefs in the beginning of time.

Don't argue with the predictions. Everything is set and nothing you can do will ever stop it.