Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Neoteny]

Roflwaffles...

[PLAYER57832]

EXCEPT, don't overestimate the intelligence of the "general public".

The sad truth is MANY people DO believe the Creationist Garbage. There is a huge conferance just ending now in Pittsburgh.

[Snorri1234]

EXCEPT, don't overestimate the intelligence of the "general public".

Well I certainly won't misunderestimate it.

[Juan_Bottom]

I just had this arguement last night (and kicked ass if you wanted to know).

"Evolution is a hypothesis"

"Heavy animals like dinosaurs sank to the bottom of the mud during the great flood."

"Animals with sharp teeth originally had them to break Coconut Husks. But after 'the fall'(from Eden) they started eating other animals instead"

"Snakes lost their legs because God punished them for telling Eve to eat the apple. Now they have to crawl in the dirt."

And always a show stopper:
"Radio-Carbon dating is completely inaccurate. So we can't tell how old fossils are"
That one always makes me angry. Always. And it never seems to go away.

None of this is made up. NONE OF IT! This is actually what I was argueing against. You don't know how upset I've been, people are so stupid. These are my neighbors.

[Neoteny]

"Animals with sharp teeth originally had them to break Coconut Husks. But after 'the fall'(from Eden) they started eating other animals instead"

Wait, what's this about? What is this arguing for?

[MeDeFe]

"Animals with sharp teeth originally had them to break Coconut Husks. But after 'the fall'(from Eden) they started eating other animals instead"

Wait, what's this about? What is this arguing for?

It's a creationist "explanation" for why herbivores and carnivores could live peacefully with each other before Adam and Steve went eating apples.

[Neoteny]

"Animals with sharp teeth originally had them to break Coconut Husks. But after 'the fall'(from Eden) they started eating other animals instead"

Wait, what's this about? What is this arguing for?

It's a creationist "explanation" for why herbivores and carnivores could live peacefully with each other before Adam and Steve went eating apples.

But what about the plants? Plants are as alive as an embro!

[Juan_Bottom]

God doesn't love greens?

Anyway, they don't count in the Bible either.

[Neoteny]

God doesn't love greens?

Anyway, they don't count in the Bible either.

God needs to take a botany course.

[MeDeFe]

God doesn't love greens?

Anyway, they don't count in the Bible either.

Nope god doesn't like veggies, btw that's what lead to Caine killing Abel.

[Juan_Bottom]

Naah... He's Omnivorous or whatever...... He'll just read you're mind or whatever.....

[MeDeFe]

That should be "just read your mind".

[jonesthecurl]

God doesn't love greens?

Anyway, they don't count in the Bible either.

Nope god doesn't like veggies, btw that's what lead to Caine killing Abel.

No, it was just because he wasn't Abel.

[eurotrip]

How can you say that!
Scientists have clearly found and carbon dated things that are older than 10,000 years
Have you never been to a museum, seen a dinasoaur skeleton they where found and have been around for millions of years
I respect your religous standings but the bible is meant to be interpreted.. not literally...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????
I am not sure to whom you are responding. Most of the last 4 pages (at least) have been supporting of Evolution. Actually most of the pages since about 78 or so have been largely arguing for evolution.


This thread did start out as a "pro Creationism" thread and several have tried to post ideas about Scientific Creationism, but none of the "critical" evidence is scientifically valid (its either irrelevant, misstating of supposed scientific views or plain outright fraudulant information). The only valid argument of Creationists is "The Bible says..." and, as you pointed out most Christians and virtually all Jews, in addition to folks of many other religions (including atheism) support Evolution.

"God" created the world in seven days but he didn't actually create the world it resembles the earth awakenign and peoples awakening from apes and such they have evolved from. There are thousands of holes in the bible (for example Mary was a barren woman who through the Angel whatever his name was had a son given to her by god and yet later in the bible Jesus has at least four brothers one of which wrights a passage in the bible and at least one sister). There are thousands of holes in the bible but there are no holes in science it has been proven and checked by hundreds of ver very very smart people and to say that evolution is false is crazy

Well, as a believing Christian AND a scientist, I disagree with most of last paragraph, but I don't want to drive this thread into yet another tangent. Most of it was covered earlier anyway.

Though I will say Mary was not barran (that was Sarah), Mary was a virgin prior to having Jesus. Quite a differance.

Also, no real scientist will say that science is without holes ... in fact a scientist is generally the very first to admit that there is far more we don't know than things we know ... and that it is always possible (not probable, but slightly possible) that almost anything could be proven wrong.

I won't go so far as to say anyone who questions Evolution is "crazy", but I will most definitely say that any true dispute has to be a lot better reasoned than the "Scientific" Creationists' arguments. And, as Gr already said, the chance that Evolution is not at least mostly true is very, very, very, very slim. (and the chance that Scientific Creationists are correct ... absolutely zero)

I believe he was answering the original topic at hand. he did not have time to read the other 117 boring pages and therefore just responded to the original topic begining .

[Neoteny]

The second coming of Gregrios!

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, I think you all know I most definitely believe Evolution! (and the Bible)

BUT some of that is actually true:

I just had this arguement last night (and kicked ass if you wanted to know).

"Evolution is a hypothesis"

True. Better to say "Theory" because "hypothesis" is more used for a narrow testable idea. A theory is an explanation that fits the available facts but has not yet been proven as fact. However, in general colloquial language, both words work.

However much of the evidence supporting Evolution is fact. THIS is the critical part that you have to emphasize. Also, if you get into "nitty gritty" a lot of Creation Science "evidence" is plain fabricated/false (such as the human footprints in a Texas rock).. but don't expect a hard core Creationist to believe you in this.

"Snakes lost their legs because God punished them for telling Eve to eat the apple. Now they have to crawl in the dirt."

The fossil record does show that snaked evolved from animals with legs. That this occured as punishment is of course the Christian, Jewish and Islamic add-on, but it is our belief.

And always a show stopper:
"Radio-Carbon dating is completely inaccurate. So we can't tell how old fossils are"
That one always makes me angry. Always. And it never seems to go away.

Again, there is a kernal of truth to this. Radio-Carbon dating is accurate within a wide error range. Better techniques exist. Also, there is much collaborating evidence that is much more understandable to the Creationist, such as tree rings.

None of this is made up. NONE OF IT! This is actually what I was argueing against. You don't know how upset I've been, people are so stupid. These are my neighbors.

Usually laughter is better than tears, but in this instance, laughter is too much like mocking.

I would suggest 2 things. First, don't even think about challanging their basic faith. Second, stick to small concrete stuff if you ever get into this debate again. However, chances are they will try to convince you up until the point you start to make sense to them ...then they will avoid you like the plague. If you think you might be getting into the debate, you might want to talk to a moderate clergy in your area. But, this Creationist theory is pervading even a few "main line" Congregations, particularly the Methodists. The main church is in support of Evolution, but a lot of the members do not know this.

[Snorri1234]

I don't think that Juan posted those because they were completely inaccurate but because they're so fundamentally stupid.

That carbon-dating is not entirely accurate when the fossils are very old is well known, but those people make it out as if that means no radio-metric dating works. It's something rearing it's ugly head in nearly every creationism-debate and most of us have gotten sick from it.

The fossil record does show that snaked evolved from animals with legs. That this occured as punishment is of course the Christian, Jewish and Islamic add-on, but it is our belief.

It makes no sense however. Is God really that much of a dick to punish an entire suborder of animals just because Satan in disguise tricked Eve into eating an apple?
I was always taught that Snakes have always been snakes in the christian view and that Eve was tricked by a snake without arms.

[Juan_Bottom]

PLAYER,
I am one of those that believes that if you ever want to change someones mind, or teach them anything, a round discussion works best. I listen to them, and they listen to me.

However much of the evidence supporting Evolution is fact.

Exactly what I said.

The fossil record does show that snaked evolved from animals with legs.

I know. I just wish they didn't know that. And how they said it so-matter-of-factly.... .....

Again, there is a kernal of truth to this. Radio-Carbon dating is accurate within a wide error range. Better techniques exist.

I tried my best to explain this. That Radio-Carbon dating is fairly accurate within' a small band of time. But that it isn't our only tool of radio dating(they rolled their eyes at this). Other methods are MUCH better. But for so many dumb-asses to cling to the idea that Radio-Carbon dating is the only method is ignorant, and frustrating. And I don't even think that they knew how radio-dating works, which tells me they are just repeating someone else tellling them that it doesn't work. I explained it to them. By that point they weren't looking at me anymore, they were looking at each other.

First, don't even think about challanging their basic faith.

Again, if I do attack their faith, they will be defensive, and will be closed off to what I say. They wouldn't learn a thing.

I was very sensitive to their faith. And when It came to evolution, I made certain to stress that most Christians do accept evolution.... and that it doesn't conflict with the Bible. But again, they rolled their eyes at that.

Second, stick to small concrete stuff if you ever get into this debate again.

I did, and do. Keeps them from having anything to rebuttel. It put them into the "listening position."

There were a few spots when I was so flabbergasted, I didn't know what to say. Like dogs and T-Rex's eating Coconuts.

However, chances are they will try to convince you up until the point you start to make sense to them ...then they will avoid you like the plague.

They just changed topic.

I don't think that Juan posted those because they were completely inaccurate but because they're so fundamentally stupid.

Yeah... I'm losing my faith in humanity.... for real...

That carbon-dating is not entirely accurate when the fossils are very old is well known, but those people make it out as if that means no radio-metric dating works. It's something rearing it's ugly head in nearly every creationism-debate and most of us have gotten sick from it.

Yes. It's always the main speaking point of the anti-evolution crowd. And it's stupid, all they have to do is pick up a book THEMSELVES.

It makes no sense however. Is God really that much of a dick to punish an entire suborder of animals just because Satan in disguise tricked Eve into eating an apple?
I was always taught that Snakes have always been snakes in the christian view and that Eve was tricked by a snake without arms.

I hate this view myself. that God took snakes legs away.
To say that Evolution is correct for every species but this one is frustrating. BUT! I remain faithfull that we'll find snakes ancestor sooner or later.... That we'll find something to back evolution up on this matter... Untill then, I think I'll just have to deal with it .
Besides, at least it's not a stupid as some of thir other arguments.

[jonesthecurl]

A good question, if asked in a non-threatening way, for hard-core creationists is this: Why are people different colours, etc?
Often they will grope their way to the idea that some things make more sense in certain circumstances. Elaborate on this, maybe introduce topics such as lactose (in)tolerance. Then they are beginning to see how people at least can adapt physically to their environment. This is of course the core idea of evolution: organisms can change, especially if their environment changes.

[Juan_Bottom]

A good question, if asked in a non-threatening way, for hard-core creationists is this: Why are people different colours, etc?
Often they will grope their way to the idea that some things make more sense in certain circumstances. Elaborate on this, maybe introduce topics such as lactose (in)tolerance. Then they are beginning to see how people at least can adapt physically to their environment. This is of course the core idea of evolution: organisms can change, especially if their environment changes.

They both believe in "Adaption," but not in evolution. Try and figure that out. F*ing morons. I'm so bothered by this.

Evolution itself is easy to explain. Examples are easy to make, and I think I did a great job. But when you hit a wall of logic like theirs..... and nothing I, or you can say would change their minds.
In fact, I had sent Packrat that article that NEOTENY shared with us... He dismisses it.

Remember, Packrat is the guy who thinks that before the flood people were giants. And they walked with the dinosaurs.

[Snorri1234]

A good question, if asked in a non-threatening way, for hard-core creationists is this: Why are people different colours, etc?
Often they will grope their way to the idea that some things make more sense in certain circumstances. Elaborate on this, maybe introduce topics such as lactose (in)tolerance. Then they are beginning to see how people at least can adapt physically to their environment. This is of course the core idea of evolution: organisms can change, especially if their environment changes.

They both believe in "Adaption," but not in evolution. Try and figure that out. F*ing morons. I'm so bothered by this.

It's amazing, because in essence they've split up something that has no actual distinction in the real world. There is not some magical line one needs to cross to become a different species, it's very gradual. Look at donkeys and horses, or tigers and lions. Essentially they're the "transitional" phase which proves evolution, they can reproduce but this leads to limited fertility.

Actually, point that out to packrat!

[Juan_Bottom]

A good question, if asked in a non-threatening way, for hard-core creationists is this: Why are people different colours, etc?
Often they will grope their way to the idea that some things make more sense in certain circumstances. Elaborate on this, maybe introduce topics such as lactose (in)tolerance. Then they are beginning to see how people at least can adapt physically to their environment. This is of course the core idea of evolution: organisms can change, especially if their environment changes.

They both believe in "Adaption," but not in evolution. Try and figure that out. F*ing morons. I'm so bothered by this.

It's amazing, because in essence they've split up something that has no actual distinction in the real world. There is not some magical line one needs to cross to become a different species, it's very gradual. Look at donkeys and horses, or tigers and lions. Essentially they're the "transitional" phase which proves evolution, they can reproduce but this leads to limited fertility.

Actually, point that out to packrat!

I ALREADY TRIED THAT!!!!!
They said that it proves "adaption," because the animals can still mate with each other. So they are still the same species.

[Snorri1234]

I ALREADY TRIED THAT!!!!!
They said that it proves "adaption," because the animals can still mate with each other. So they are still the same species.

But they're not for long. Male Ligers are sterile for example, and the females are not as fertile as they would like to be.

In essence, they can't really reproduce very good. Therefore anyone with a brain can see that they're not exactly the same species.

[Juan_Bottom]

I ALREADY TRIED THAT!!!!!
They said that it proves "adaption," because the animals can still mate with each other. So they are still the same species.

But they're not for long. Male Ligers are sterile for example, and the females are not as fertile as they would like to be.

In essence, they can't really reproduce very good. Therefore anyone with a brain can see that they're not exactly the same species.

A person with a brain would not be trying to convince me that alligators, dogs, lions, and snakes used to eat only nuts. Thus rationaly explaining their sharp teeth.

[Neoteny]

Gators and crocs do get their share of nuts from time to time.