Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Kid_A]

Are there really 95 pages of arguments about creationism? That's almost enough to turn me off from the forums forever!

[DangerBoy]

It is no scientific heresy to say "I do not know."

I read your entire post and it was a good one. The reason I picked out this little nugget is because evolutionists and atheists basically say they do know that evolution is true. They also say they know that creationism is false. If they were truly consistent then they would say they don't know either way and would be open to both models but in reality they aren't.

[tzor]

Are there really 95 pages of arguments about creationism? That's almost enough to turn me off from the forums forever!

No this is Chater Box. Let's be kind and say that 1/4 pages are on creationism; 1/4 are on evolution and 1/2 are pure spam. That would be 23 pages. Out of those 23 pages, the same argument is probably repeated ad nauseum about 5 times so let's call it 4 pages.

Happy now?

[PLAYER57832]

Other than the quantum part, you have essentially reworded much of what I have been saying.

You lost me on evolution being quantum, though ... it no doubt has a quantum base, but at some point it entered the "real" world ... or nothing we know would exist (okay, I know some say reality doesn't exist, but what they really mean is that the rules they thought applied, don't ... at least at the quantum level)

... but that is about like debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

[joecoolfrog]

It is no scientific heresy to say "I do not know."

I read your entire post and it was a good one. The reason I picked out this little nugget is because evolutionists and atheists basically say they do know that evolution is true. They also say they know that creationism is false. If they were truly consistent then they would say they don't know either way and would be open to both models but in reality they aren't.

Well you have 95 pages so please find me the quotes that back up these claims, there is a lot of tangible evidence for evolution and zero for creationism which understandably tends to form peoples opinion. However I dont recall a stampede of posters insisting that evolution is entirely proven so I will assume that you have simply fabricated the notion to try and prove your point.

[CoffeeCream]

[quote="joecoolfrog"]I can see the case for Inteligent design, it enables Christians to embrace science without compromising their faith, but creationism is absurd and it's a crime to teach it to children as fact.[/quote]

If I can ask, what in your view is the difference between intelligent design and creationism?

By the way I hate these new forums. I thought I quoted joe correctly but it still shows up as text.

[PLAYER57832]

[quote="DangerBoy"][quote="tzor"]It is no scientific heresy to say "I do not know."[/quote]

I read your entire post and it was a good one. The reason I picked out this little nugget is because evolutionists and atheists basically say they do know that evolution is true. They also say they know that creationism is false. If they were truly consistent then they would say they don't know either way and would be open to both models but in reality they aren't.[/quote]


WRONG -- evolutionist don't say that they "know evolution to be true". They say that there is a lot of evidence to support the basic idea.

As far as creationism being false -- the eart IS more than 4000 years old, but that was an early idea that is not really accepted even by many creationists. Some other parts of Creationist theories (there is more than one) are similarly false, some are disputed, but not proven false.

Most evolutionist are NOT ahtiests. True Athiesm is still very much a minority within the US, Canada and even much of Europe.

[DangerBoy]

JoeCoolFrog, you can't be serious. I went back to the first 15 pages of this thread and easily found that atheists/evolutionists declare their side to be correct and say that to hold the creationist view is absolutely wrong. There were a few where they wouldn't go so far as to say that evolution was absolutely true but they did say that creationism was absolutely false. One quote was even from yourself. The evolutionists hold to their view as being absolute and unable to be questioned. This was all just from the first 15 pages! Are you really going to try and say that this isn't the case? All they do is try to ridicule WidowMakers or anyone else instead of behaving like normal people. The choice to follow evolution is an extremely emotional one, not one based in behaving logically.

Yet another silly debate about superstition, myth and legend. - Backglass

To me, evolution isn't even a debate. It happened. Get over it. - Algy Taylor

I don't think you even know what evolution is. - Iliad

presenting creationists with science seems to force their heads deeper into the sand and their fingers deeper into their ears (under the sand, obviously). - heavycola

1) Evolution has scientific proof which backs it up. 2) Creation has no scientific proof. - Titanic

There isn't ANY proof for creationism. - Iliad

So you personally didn't say that evolution was absolutely correct, but you did say that creationism had no evidence and you claimed that as an absolute:

There is a certain amount of scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution,there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever to support creationism NONE ! - yourself

All the evidence points to evolution and natural selection and it's still not enough to sway you people. Why? 'because the bible says so'. And that is not an argument. Creationism and evolution are not competing theories, and to treat them as such is just demeaning. - heavycola

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE. This is pitching scientific observation against one of countless creation stories. The two are not competing theories. One is the Hebrew version of creation, the other is science. - heavycola

Christianity and creationism are nothing more than wishful thinking and fairy tales. - Backglass

The religious leaders created their own gods out of nothing, and made their little tales of how the Earth came about to how it is today. The Big Bang/Evolution is why we are here. - ParadiceCity9

OK here's another thing I think should be said. Evolution may not be the answer to where we are today. but creationisn is DEFINITELY not. - ParadiceCity9

When he was asked how he knew this to be true, instead of providing proof he just slammed the side he didn't want to agree with:

Because it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. And I mean ABSOLUTELY none. "God" did not make a man out of his rib bone, that's impossible. How do you believe that??!! I'd like to hear how that's possible. - ParadiceCity9

See, he stated it as an absolute!!!

This was only in the first 15 pages, Joe. I didn't even quote Neoni's stuff.

[Frigidus]

[quote="DangerBoy"]JoeCoolFrog, you can't be serious. I went back to the first 15 pages of this thread and easily found that atheists/evolutionists declare their side to be correct and say that to hold the creationist view is absolutely wrong. There were a few where they wouldn't go so far as to say that evolution was absolutely true but they did say that creationism was absolutely false. One quote was even from yourself. The evolutionists hold to their view as being absolute and unable to be questioned. This was all just from the first 15 pages! Are you really going to try and say that this isn't the case? All they do is try to ridicule WidowMakers or anyone else instead of behaving like normal people. The choice to follow evolution is an extremely emotional one, not one based in behaving logically.

Yet another silly debate about superstition, myth and legend. - Backglass

To me, evolution isn't even a debate. It happened. Get over it. - Algy Taylor

I don't think you even know what evolution is. - Iliad

presenting creationists with science seems to force their heads deeper into the sand and their fingers deeper into their ears (under the sand, obviously). - heavycola

1) Evolution has scientific proof which backs it up. 2) Creation has no scientific proof. - Titanic

There isn't ANY proof for creationism. - Iliad

So you personally didn't say that evolution was absolutely correct, but you did say that creationism had no evidence and you claimed that as an absolute:

There is a certain amount of scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution,there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever to support creationism NONE ! - yourself

All the evidence points to evolution and natural selection and it's still not enough to sway you people. Why? 'because the bible says so'. And that is not an argument. Creationism and evolution are not competing theories, and to treat them as such is just demeaning. - heavycola

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE. This is pitching scientific observation against one of countless creation stories. The two are not competing theories. One is the Hebrew version of creation, the other is science. - heavycola

Christianity and creationism are nothing more than wishful thinking and fairy tales. - Backglass

The religious leaders created their own gods out of nothing, and made their little tales of how the Earth came about to how it is today. The Big Bang/Evolution is why we are here. - ParadiceCity9

OK here's another thing I think should be said. Evolution may not be the answer to where we are today. but creationisn is DEFINITELY not. - ParadiceCity9

When he was asked how he knew this to be true, instead of providing proof he just slammed the side he didn't want to agree with:

Because it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. And I mean ABSOLUTELY none. "God" did not make a man out of his rib bone, that's impossible. How do you believe that??!! I'd like to hear how that's possible. - ParadiceCity9

See, he stated it as an absolute!!!

This was only in the first 15 pages, Joe. I didn't even quote Neoni's stuff.[/quote]

But there really isn't any evidence for creationism...I mean distrust in a theory with a few (I'll give it to you) holes in it is one thing, but absolute trust in something with nothing on it's side but the church's assurance? It's just fanciful.

[PLAYER57832]

neither formatting nor quotes seem to be working, so the above are confusing.

Danger boy said that he thought evolutionists said evolution is proven and Creationists say creationism is proven.

I said that wasn't true.


Evolutionists (meaning SCIENTISTS, not everyone who believes what the science has produced) say that there is a ream of evidence to support the idea that species evolved from one another, utlimately from -- well, earth. Evolution is and probably always will be a theory. Some things SUPPORTING the theory are fact. Animals and plants DO adapt, for example. A LOT of people DO confuse those two and do call evolution a "fact", but scientists don't. They say it is very very unlikely that another theory could be accurate, but not that it is entirely impossible.



Creationists, on the other hand, rely on the Bible for their proof. This takes many forms. One of the older theories said that the earth is just over 4000 years old. This HAS been firmly proven false. The most recent incarnation is Intelligent design, which is a lot like what most people of faith (and not just Christian faith) have thought of as plain old "evolution". Loosely, it says that God is dictating the changes that have occured. The scary part of this theory is that it is being presented as an "alternative" to evolution instead of a compatable theory.


Many Christians and Jews dispute the fundamentalist view of Genesis on BIBLE grounds.


SOME creationists, including widowmaker (ergo this thread), feel they can prove that evolution is false. However, what they generally prove is that they don't understand science. And, if I sound a bit abrupt, I am sorry, but it IS the truth.

[Neoteny]

You missed this one.

[quote="suggs"]can we agree that all religion is BOLLOCKS?
Good.[/quote]

Also, this is a gem...

[quote="CrazyAnglican"]I've often admitted that there is a point where I no longer rely on reason (it only takes you so far) and this is that point.[/quote]

And, man, I was tearing it up in pages 37-50. Pwned. I had forgotten how much fun I had.

Oh, and what's all this about absolutism? Do we need to go back into the 1 + 1 =/= 2 thing again?

[joecoolfrog]

I can see the case for Inteligent design, it enables Christians to embrace science without compromising their faith, but creationism is absurd and it's a crime to teach it to children as fact.

If I can ask, what in your view is the difference between intelligent design and creationism?

By the way I hate these new forums. I thought I quoted joe correctly but it still shows up as text.

I equate creationism with a literal belief in Genesis, that the earth was created in 7 days about 5000 years ago, this is the stance of the evangelical young earth movement. Inteligent design on the other hand recognises that the earth is many millions of years old and has evolved over this period, however the belief is that the key components that trigered evolution were put in place by a designer ( God ) rather than being a random happening. As a non believer I choose to favour the later option but can certainly sympathise with the alternative notion, believing the earth is only 5-10,000 years old is simply flying in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contarary.

[joecoolfrog]

Danger Boy

The only people that dont accept some kind of evolution are those who stick to a literal belief in Genesis, is that your stance because if not you are basicly agreeing with those you have quoted. If however you are a literalist then please provide your evidence for the earth being less than 10,000 years old - because that is what creationism boils down to.

[tzor]

You lost me on evolution being quantum, though ... it no doubt has a quantum base, but at some point it entered the "real" world ... or nothing we know would exist.

From Wiki - Quantum evolution

Quantum evolution is a component of George Gaylord Simpson's multi-tempoed theory of evolutionary change, responsible for the rapid emergence of higher taxonomic groups. According to Simpson, evolutionary rates differ from group to group and even among closely related lineages. These different rates of evolutionary change were designated by Simpson as horotelic (medium tempo), bradytelic (slow tempo), and tachytelic (rapid tempo). Quantum evolution differed from these styles of change in that it involved a drastic shift in the adaptive zones of certain classes of animals. The word "quantum" therefore refers to an "all-or-none reaction," where transitional forms are particularly unstable, and perished rapidly and completely. Although Quantum evolution may happen at any taxonomic level (1953, 389), it plays a much larger role in "the origin taxonomic units of relatively high rank, such as families, orders, and classes." (1944, 206)

[naranie]

Whoa...so much for understanding Quantum evolution.

Anyways, I like to believe in the fact we evolved our way to humans and the earth formed but it is still cool to say earth was formed my a being in stories. Fun!

[PLAYER57832]

Wow, it seems I have posted quite a bit.

I originally posted because Widowmaker left the evolution section blank and asked for input. I responded, was told that was a mistake. Because some of the argument pro creation was essentially "there is God, therefore Creationism is real" ... I mentioned that , in fact, a large number of those who believe in Evolution are actually Christian (not to mention many other faiths). I was told "that's off topic" ... and basically dropped the issue.


I came BACK because I had a conversation with the youth pastor of a program my son (7) wanted to attend as well as many conversations with community members where it became apparent that Creationism was taking a strong hold in my own community, and that it was about to come before the school board.

I found that many people THOUGHT that the Catholic church, the Methodist churd and other traditional churches were considered evolutionary theory false (not true), that the evidence for evolution (NOT absolute "PROOF", but STRONG evidence in support) was false (it isn't), that, in fact, much of what I learned in science classes is plain wrong.

They claimed that theories ranging from Global warming to FACTS such as the extinction of species were "false" and that THEIR CHURCHES supported this belief.

For the most part, they were wrong.... and I have spoken with both local priests and pastors/ministers of the churches in question mentioning this. In one case, I went up to the synod level ... because it turned out the Pastor himself was mis-informed. (THAT is an indication of just how poor science teaching has been of late, and how widespread creationism has become)

At this point, I think I have posted about as much as I ought here (perhaps a bit more) I won't gaurantee this to be my last post, but I don't intend to post as I have the past few days.

I DO leave the "community' at large with 2 challanges.

1. FIND OUT what folks in your local area believe and what children are being taught.

2. Be sure fact is clearly distinguished from religious ideas. I am in no way against open religious ideas ... I DO ask that they not be confused with fact. Too many creationists don't do this ... because they have not been taught very BASIC scientific ideas. (read the beginnings of this post). It is sort of like trying to explain the concept of flying in an airplain to a tribesman who has no concept of anything modern and who DOES belief in spirit journeys. ... and equates that with flying. You have to do a LOT of groundwork to even be understood.

3. If you are a creationist, then put your theories to the same sort of rigorous test and objectivity as evolution. I have met many, many creationists. I have yet to meet even 1 who really and truly STUDIED the evidence for evolution and STILL kept their original views of Creationism. That is, most go so far and about the time they find ideas inconsistant with their own beliefs, stop and say "this is just plain false and I don't have any more time" ... and read above and you will see how true this is.

[ben kenobie]

Here is a website where you can watch a video clip of an interview between Bill O Riley and a creationist. http://www.getexpelled.com/ click on the "Watch the super trailer link and then click on the interview. I'll let the creationist do my explaining for me.

[MeDeFe]

Bill must have been in love with that guy, he got nothing even resembling the normal treatment, I remember seeing a clip when they had someone pro-choice there... that got really ugly, she barely got a word in edgewise.

[PLAYER57832]

Just to clarify.

I saw the trailer. AND, as far as it went, it actually cooincides VERY much with my own beliefs.

BUT here is where things get blurry.

You see, THAT FILM talks about the theory of "Intelligent design". THAT theory is definitely a valid, debateable theory. From what I have seen (I am not ready to get a PhD in the subject, but probably know a bit more than your average "joe"), the real issue is not whether it is a valid theory, but whether it should be presented as science. In fact, I see nothing in intelligent design that really and truly goes against the basic idea of evolution -- that things change through time, that species originate from other species and, as some point minerals (aka "the earth"). But .. THAT is not what this here thread was started to debate.

What WIDOWMAKER spoke of above is more PURE CREATIONISM ... and as a COMPLETE OPPOSITION to science. Widowmaker specifically told me, early on, that "theistic evolution" was not on her topic.

AND the PROBLEM is that too many Creationists START by arguing intelligent design -- A very LEGITIMATE discussion -- but then quickly blurr in PURE, VERY STRICT Creationist views. In some cases, all the way back to declaring that the earth is just over 4000 years old. THAT is what makes this dangerous.

By-the-way, some of the discrimination referred to IS true, but so is the reality presented in the "Jesus Camp" mentioned above. EITHER is an extreme. EITHER is dangerous. The idea that Darwinism and a belief in God are inconsistant .. I find dangerous.

The REAL truth is that most Americans (and it probably is similar in Canada, though I cannot say for sure), believe in God (over 90%, according to the most comprehensive study every done .. and recently released), over 70% in the US consider themselves Christian. AND the overwhelming majority DO believe that Darwin had it "basically" correct, that evolutionary theory is pretty valid, certainly more than the idea that the earth is 4000 years old, AND that there is a whole realm of "in between" ideas that may or may not be true.

Talking about the "grey areas" is good debate. When it becomes dangerous, is when there is no distinction between what is fact (species changing over time) , what is theory supported by a mound of evidence (but still theory -- birds came from dinosaurs) and what is pure, unadulterated speculation (God is "steering" the whole thing, versus it is pure random chance). Widowmaker DID cross that line. And so did many others on BOTH sides of the debate.

THAT is why I felt so strongly that I posted so many times... I HOPE I have helped, have clarified a bit for folks with real questions and that I have alerted those who did not know about the extent of this debate to just how pervasive it is.

I look forward to seeing this film .. and the debate it will engender, if it really does a decent job of considering the issues. I am forwarding the link to my pastor, and several other contacts. I urge you all to do the same!


Oh, and please, please, PLEASE, pay attention to your science teachers. If you don't agree -- fine, but PROVE IT! and, don't think that at age 13 (or 18, for that matter), with "one biology class" under your belt, you have enough information to really and truly disprove years and years and volumes and volumes of real, solid research. If you wish to take it as your mission to prove the scientific community wrong -- GO FOR IT!, but start with SOUND, and REAL science, not a bunch of fabrications.

And understand ... if you try to claim that NASA, its equivalents in other countries, everyone associated with them and most of the world's governments are ALL in some great conspiracy to do away with Christianity ... and that the world really is flat .... well, chances are you aren't reading this, but if you are .. understand those kinds of "facts" just won't "fly" in the real world... sorry.

[DangerBoy]

Danger Boy

The only people that dont accept some kind of evolution are those who stick to a literal belief in Genesis, is that your stance because if not you are basicly agreeing with those you have quoted. If however you are a literalist then please provide your evidence for the earth being less than 10,000 years old - because that is what creationism boils down to.

Joe, that's just not true. There are plenty of people who do not accept evolution and are not Christians either. They don't take a literal stance on Genesis. I don't agree with the people I've quoted. You can go back and read what I wrote but stop trying to twist it. I said that atheists/evolutionists claim to either know that evolution is true and creationism is not true (even though scientifically that is impossible because nobody was there to observe the beginning of the universe). You asked for quotes and I provided them. Yes, there were some people who were willing to admit that they couldn't prove evolution to be true but they did state that creationism was absolutely false. So I proved my point by only using the 1st 15 pages of this thread. Yes, atheists/evolutionists claim to know what is true and not even though they don't.

I'll post some stuff on why the earth is younger than what the evolutionary model teaches. I don't think you'll accept it though because you're emotionally invested in atheism. I'll admit this to you up front - I don't know the exact age of the earth but can only make a reasonable guess within a range. It would be nice to see the atheists/evolutionists be as humble.

[reminisco]

call me old fashioned, but i believe that fire is magic!

[PLAYER57832]

Danger Boy

The only people that dont accept some kind of evolution are those who stick to a literal belief in Genesis, is that your stance because if not you are basicly agreeing with those you have quoted. If however you are a literalist then please provide your evidence for the earth being less than 10,000 years old - because that is what creationism boils down to.

Joe, that's just not true. There are plenty of people who do not accept evolution and are not Christians either. They don't take a literal stance on Genesis. I don't agree with the people I've quoted. You can go back and read what I wrote but stop trying to twist it. I said that atheists/evolutionists claim to either know that evolution is true and creationism is not true (even though scientifically that is impossible because nobody was there to observe the beginning of the universe). You asked for quotes and I provided them. Yes, there were some people who were willing to admit that they couldn't prove evolution to be true but they did state that creationism was absolutely false. So I proved my point by only using the 1st 15 pages of this thread. Yes, atheists/evolutionists claim to know what is true and not even though they don't.

I'll post some stuff on why the earth is younger than what the evolutionary model teaches. I don't think you'll accept it though because you're emotionally invested in atheism. I'll admit this to you up front - I don't know the exact age of the earth but can only make a reasonable guess within a range. It would be nice to see the atheists/evolutionists be as humble.

Part of the problem is small "e" versus capitol "E" evolution.

Small "e" evolution, referring to the idea that species adapt and change over time IS proven and is FACT.

Big "E" Evolution -- specific ideas such as that birds arose from dinosaurs , etc. is a THEORY and is NOT proven.

If you consider Widowmaker to have accurately reported Creationism, then, yes, many of those arguments have been disproven and so you can say that creationism is disproven.

SOME scientists do insist that EVOLUTION excludes any possibility of divine intervention, but the vast majority of individuals of most faiths (any faith recognizing a higher being), including myself don't accept that narrow interpretation.


FURTHER, you will, of course, find individuals who just plain misunderstand, quote incorrectly, etc. .... on ALL sides of ANY discussion/argument/idea.

[reminisco]

you realise, of course, the entire reason why none of us know how the world really began, is because the Matrix didn't include that in the program.

stupid machines, they couldn't even get the illusion right.

[Neoteny]

Danger Boy

The only people that dont accept some kind of evolution are those who stick to a literal belief in Genesis, is that your stance because if not you are basicly agreeing with those you have quoted. If however you are a literalist then please provide your evidence for the earth being less than 10,000 years old - because that is what creationism boils down to.

Joe, that's just not true. There are plenty of people who do not accept evolution and are not Christians either. They don't take a literal stance on Genesis. I don't agree with the people I've quoted. You can go back and read what I wrote but stop trying to twist it. I said that atheists/evolutionists claim to either know that evolution is true and creationism is not true (even though scientifically that is impossible because nobody was there to observe the beginning of the universe). You asked for quotes and I provided them. Yes, there were some people who were willing to admit that they couldn't prove evolution to be true but they did state that creationism was absolutely false. So I proved my point by only using the 1st 15 pages of this thread. Yes, atheists/evolutionists claim to know what is true and not even though they don't.

I'll post some stuff on why the earth is younger than what the evolutionary model teaches. I don't think you'll accept it though because you're emotionally invested in atheism. I'll admit this to you up front - I don't know the exact age of the earth but can only make a reasonable guess within a range. It would be nice to see the atheists/evolutionists be as humble.

"Atheists/evolutionists" know evolution occurred the same way they know that "germs" cause disease. Doctors aren't a few nanometers long so they can't be there to see what's happening, much like your hypothetical atheist who couldn't see the beginning of the universe. This is how I know you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You obviously don't know how science works. Allow me to give an example to try to explain it.

A doctor knows that you have strep throat because the Streptococcus cause various symptoms that the doctor can analyze. Similarly, evolution produces many symptoms that can be, and are, observed. Of course, these symptoms can be misinterpreted, but to presume that any current creation myths are true when they've been deemed incompatible with these symptoms for the past hundred fifty some-odd years is silly. You take germ theory for granted because it doesn't go against your social indoctrination. Try it some time. It's rather liberating.

OMG do you want to talk about irony? I just saw my first TV trailer for Expelled while I was typing this...

[reminisco]

OMG do you want to talk about irony? I just saw my first TV trailer for Expelled while I was typing this...

i saw the entire 7 minute extended trailer...

i'm pretty sure Ben Stein is exploiting the hugely influential conservative Christian market here in the states the same way Gibson did with his gore-fest pet project.

i'm willing to bet that Expelled will make more than Devil's Playground and Jesus Camp combined, despite the greater social relevance of the latter two documentaries.