Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[InkL0sed]

even though im pro evolution

Kinda like Pro Evolution Soccer?

[a.sub]

even though im pro evolution

Kinda like Pro Evolution Soccer?

i am a soccer fan

[nietzsche]

To those who complained:

Who made you the authority to say which are the holes or the weak and strong points in the theories?

"If apples are red then you can say that the earth is not the center of the universe, but since there have been seen apples in other colours such as green and yellow, then it might be possible for the earth to be the center of the universe"

That is an exaggeration of what you guys say, but believe me, to someone who understands the matter it's kind of how it sounds.

The reason nobody has come here and tell you with patience and explained you why is it that Creationism makes no rival for Evolution is that you will treat any argument with the same insolence, no matter if it's an educated one or just plain rubbish. Insolence was fine when Copernicus had to fight against the book burners but today with the so many people arguing matters they just really don't understand, now insolence is not the best option.

If I tell you that even though Evolution doesn't explain what happened before the Bug Bang, and that the current state of the law of physics cannot explain it either, you go ahead and claim that that "hole" add strength to Creationism.

I could stay here in this forum trying to take you step by step, trying to help you learn to thing and not only repeat what teachers or preachers or authors tells you but in some moment an attack from a preacher will make me loose my patience.
I am by no means an expert, but I've read a lot in matters of philosophy, religion, science. (Someone will come trying to test me in some obscure detail trying to disprove me I anticipe).

If you used half the time you spent in this thread to actually read a good book on the matter, then you'd learn much more. (But please don't select a book by a preacher or those that appear on Oprah and such). Why don't read the most respected authors first? Hawkins, Dennet, Dawkins, perhaps W. James to understand a little about psychology and don't make of any feeling a revelation?, maybe some of Sartre to know a little about existentialism and absurdism? Maybe even some study of meaning?

[a.sub]

To those who complained:

Who made you the authority to say which are the holes or the weak and strong points in the theories?

"If apples are red then you can say that the earth is not the center of the universe, but since there have been seen apples in other colours such as green and yellow, then it might be possible for the earth to be the center of the universe"

That is an exaggeration of what you guys say, but believe me, to someone who understands the matter it's kind of how it sounds.

The reason nobody has come here and tell you with patience and explained you why is it that Creationism makes no rival for Evolution is that you will treat any argument with the same insolence, no matter if it's an educated one or just plain rubbish. Insolence was fine when Copernicus had to fight against the book burners but today with the so many people arguing matters they just really don't understand, now insolence is not the best option.

If I tell you that even though Evolution doesn't explain what happened before the Bug Bang, and that the current state of the law of physics cannot explain it either, you go ahead and claim that that "hole" add strength to Creationism.

I could stay here in this forum trying to take you step by step, trying to help you learn to thing and not only repeat what teachers or preachers or authors tells you but in some moment an attack from a preacher will make me loose my patience.
I am by no means an expert, but I've read a lot in matters of philosophy, religion, science. (Someone will come trying to test me in some obscure detail trying to disprove me I anticipe).

If you used half the time you spent in this thread to actually read a good book on the matter, then you'd learn much more. (But please don't select a book by a preacher or those that appear on Oprah and such). Why don't read the most respected authors first? Hawkins, Dennet, Dawkins, perhaps W. James to understand a little about psychology and don't make of any feeling a revelation?, maybe some of Sartre to know a little about existentialism and absurdism? Maybe even some study of meaning?

although i disagreed with u before, this i agree with, as an evolutionist i think his points are fully valid and (ignoring the insults) is a legit argument supporting our side.
for nietzsche

[MeDeFe]

But if you read Dawkins, stick to the books where he talks about biological matters.

[WidowMakers]

If I tell you that even though Evolution doesn't explain what happened before the Bug Bang, and that the current state of the law of physics cannot explain it either, you go ahead and claim that that "hole" add strength to Creationism.

Thanks fro your input but I am not just speaking of what has happened before teh "Big Bang". Evolution does not work anywhere when you look at the big picture. As I have stated before here are teh areas of evolution (in general there is some overlapping) and teh first needs to happen before the second and so on.

Stages of Evolution:

• *Cosmic evolution encompasses the origin of the universe, time and matter. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline.
  *Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
  *Stellar and planetary evolution focuses on the origin of stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet at times can overlap it.
  *Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Origin of life research centers upon this discipline.
  *The two final disciplines, macro- and micro-evolution, are most often wrongly interchanged. They are not meant to detail the origin of living matter, but attempt to explain the innumerable variety of plants and animals. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations, within a species. Macro-evolution takes this further, stating that such adaptations and mutations will, over time, create a new species of plants or animals. Micro-evolution attempts to explain variety within a particular species, while macro-evolution attempts to prove a common link between all species, families or phyla.

• Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. It occurs when an assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption. The crux of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many aspects of evolution’s fundament are nothing more than assumptions used to explain and “prove” other hypotheses. This is not the scientific method—and not how legitimate science operates!
  Approach this subject like a scientist. As you read, remember that if any assumption can be shown to be false—or impossible to validate—any conclusions based upon it crumble to pieces.
  To remove all doubt, most of the major tenets of evolution will be shown to be nothing more than assumptions. Many are so important that disproving even one causes the entire theory to collapse.http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080602-003-eedfs.html

Each one of these areas listed above (except for MICRO-e) has HUGE holes and theories that do not support what we see in the world today. They have been changed countless times to account for new data that contradicts the old hypothesis and theory. They are not facts. They have not been proven. They are, in many cases, contradictory to one another or are so improbably that any other branch of science would not even consider them.

But evolution, an improbable, unprovable, far-fetched and inconsistent theory, is considered fact and shoved down our throats.

And anytime a person questions it and asks to see why it works or how it compares to the other fields of study, and shows why there are HUGE holes and issues, they are accused of begin STUPID or IGNORANT.

[Desoulman]

If you used half the time you spent in this thread to actually read a good book on the matter, then you'd learn much more. (But please don't select a book by a preacher or those that appear on Oprah and such). Why don't read the most respected authors first? Hawkins, Dennet, Dawkins, perhaps W. James to understand a little about psychology and don't make of any feeling a revelation?, maybe some of Sartre to know a little about existentialism and absurdism? Maybe even some study of meaning?

This is an interesting list. Unless I am mistaken, you are listing scientists all on one side of the argument. Why not read up on some creation scientists, such as Dr Chuck Missler, or Dr Ken Ham (and actually consider what they say, and not say "Oh, they are creationists, so they must not know anything about science). Consider both sides, and come to your own conclusion.

[AlgyTaylor]

I find it sad that people can be so quick to pass of Leprechauns without studying them. Why haven't you? Do you deny their existence? Why wont you open your heart and let them in? All they want is to give you pots-o-gold! Many people have come to me with "proof" that Leprechauns don't exist and make outrageous scientific claims. They simply cannot believe in what they cannot see. Sadly blinded of such riches.

If you would only study them in depth you would come to love and worship our little friends as well.

I proper LOLed. Agree totally, though. We've all seen the rainbows.

[Backglass]

If you would only study them in depth you would come to love and worship our little friends as well.

By all means, give me some sort of text to study that claims for leprachauns to be real.

Of course! There are some ancient texts written in the bronze age by nomadic drifters that have seen them!!! Often they were spoken to and instructed on various quests by a flaming holy smelt furnace. Gold coins would be melted, and the voice of the Leprechaun King would speak to them. (Though ONLY when the smelter was alone. The Leprechaun King does not ever speak to more than one person at a time, even though he is capable. We do not question the Leprechaun King.) He rules over the entire Leprechaun clan..though no one has ever seen him. He guides them to us with an unseen hand. It is written that once they even magically supplied an entire city with GOLD & JEWELS! One minute their pockets were empty, and when they looked again, THEY WERE FULL! REJOICE!

Open your heart and begin your studies. You must search until you find them, even if it takes decades. They will not come to you, you must seek them out.
Only then will you know true riches.

[AlgyTaylor]

]

If you would only study them in depth you would come to love and worship our little friends as well.

By all means, give me some sort of text to study that claims for leprachauns to be real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leinster
Tuatha Dé Danann

Study away.

[Desoulman]

]

If you would only study them in depth you would come to love and worship our little friends as well.

By all means, give me some sort of text to study that claims for leprachauns to be real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leinster
Tuatha Dé Danann

Study away.

Well, your first link makes no claim the leprechauns exist. Its just about the mythology behind them.
I did a search through The Book of Leinster, and did not find any mention of leprechauns. Perhaps you could clarify for me where in this book it is claimed they exist?

[PLAYER57832]

If you used half the time you spent in this thread to actually read a good book on the matter, then you'd learn much more. (But please don't select a book by a preacher or those that appear on Oprah and such). Why don't read the most respected authors first? Hawkins, Dennet, Dawkins, perhaps W. James to understand a little about psychology and don't make of any feeling a revelation?, maybe some of Sartre to know a little about existentialism and absurdism? Maybe even some study of meaning?

This is an interesting list. Unless I am mistaken, you are listing scientists all on one side of the argument. Why not read up on some creation scientists, such as Dr Chuck Missler, or Dr Ken Ham (and actually consider what they say, and not say "Oh, they are creationists, so they must not know anything about science). Consider both sides, and come to your own conclusion.

The problem is not that those scientists are Creationists, it is that they do not use the Scientific processes properly.

In many cases, they state basic principals incorrectly ... such as citing the second law of thermodynamics to claim that complex systems cannot exist. This is just not so! Or they claim that there "ought to be more information" ... if Evolution were true, such as transition fossils. That last is often coupled with claims that transition fossils don't exist. They do, just not in every case. And, it is perfectly understandable that we would not have a complete record given the very narrow conditions necessary to produce fossils.

A third tactic is to just misstate Evolution. Many still make the claim that Evolution means all species arrived solely through natural selection in a smooth process. This is just not true.

Finally, there are, sadly, a good many of outright frauds -- people who will falsify data with the belief that they are "serving God" (never mind that Christ teaches us to be truthful ... they say they are telling the truth, because they are supporting the Bible).

[Backglass]

Well, your first link makes no claim the leprechauns exist. Its just about the mythology behind them.
I did a search through The Book of Leinster, and did not find any mention of leprechauns. Perhaps you could clarify for me where in this book it is claimed they exist?

Mythology?! How dare you Sir! Leprechauns are real...I have felt their presence on many occasions and see their blessings daily!

What, you expect them to just pop up and say "HI"? Well Leprechauns don't work that way. "Seek and ye shall find", they will not come to you! You only need FAITH to be welcomed into their wondrous world. You can see their hand everywhere you look, you only have to open your eyes to see the beauty they bring to the world. Thousands of books and stories have been told of Leprechauns for centuries. This can ONLY mean that they are real! Surely you realize that what you blaspheme as myth MUST be rooted in truth!

For example. HOW ELSE can you explain the amount of Gold in the world? You think it just accidentally appeared IN THE GROUND by random chance? Surely you cant be serious! Gold CANNOT come from non-gold, this is BASIC SCIENCE...not psycho-babble mumbo-jumbo alchemy! It was our wondrous friends the Leprechauns who placed this gold, where we would find it. Why else would this incredible metal be revered and cherished for millennia? SOME COSMIC ACCIDENT? HA! The truly enlightened know why. I pray you will too some day.

[jonesthecurl]

And besides, rainbows are mentioned in the bible. God obviously created the leprechauns immediately after the Flood.

[Desoulman]

Well, your first link makes no claim the leprechauns exist. Its just about the mythology behind them.
I did a search through The Book of Leinster, and did not find any mention of leprechauns. Perhaps you could clarify for me where in this book it is claimed they exist?

Mythology?! How dare you Sir! Leprechauns are real...I have felt their presence on many occasions and see their blessings daily!

What, you expect them to just pop up and say "HI"? Well Leprechauns don't work that way. "Seek and ye shall find", they will not come to you! You only need FAITH to be welcomed into their wondrous world. You can see their hand everywhere you look, you only have to open your eyes to see the beauty they bring to the world. Thousands of books and stories have been told of Leprechauns for centuries. This can ONLY mean that they are real! Surely you realize that what you blaspheme as myth MUST be rooted in truth!

For example. HOW ELSE can you explain the amount of Gold in the world? You think it just accidentally appeared IN THE GROUND by random chance? Surely you cant be serious! Gold CANNOT come from non-gold, this is BASIC SCIENCE...not psycho-babble mumbo-jumbo alchemy! It was our wondrous friends the Leprechauns who placed this gold, where we would find it. Why else would this incredible metal be revered and cherished for millennia? SOME COSMIC ACCIDENT? HA! The truly enlightened know why. I pray you will too some day.

I never said it was a myth, I said your sources made no claim of the existence of leprechauns. You're not very good at this game, are you?

[Backglass]

I never said it was a myth, I said your sources made no claim of the existence of leprechauns.

So you DO believe in Leprechauns then? Excellent. For Shamus 3:15 writes: "Beware the unbeliever who demands proof. Pity them! The Leprechaun King does not do their bidding! For they believe only what their eyes can see and know not of the wonders of GOLD! Those that do not believe are destined to spend all eternity mining Pyrite. " And don't even get me started on the Book of Ferguson! (I KNOW!!!!)

Forget the holy Word of the Leprechaun King for a moment, even though these writings are based in truth. Millions of followers say it's true! Are you saying that all these people throughout the world ARE WRONG or some how delusional?! You simply have to believe to get the so-called "proof" you desire. Open your cold, cold heart my friend.

You are not very good at this game are you

Oh yeah, I'm awful.

I have noticed you have ignored ALL my questions regarding our little friends. Why is that? Perhaps, in your heart of hearts, you know the truth? Why do you hate them so?

[PLAYER57832]

I would hope not. It's much more interesting without a god.

There is to be more than one debate... don't worry.

[PLAYER57832]

I took the following from the cite referenced by Desoulman. It shows why Creation Science is not viewed as science:

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Science, in fact, is specifically about challenging any assumption. We recognize bias, but that is why there are set, complicated procedures and multiple challenges to ANY data or conclusion before it is accepted.


The following is also from that cite:

Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

The part I have highlighted in blue is the worldview that Widowmakers espouses. It is, however, simply not true. The truth is that far more scientists who are Christians fully agree with and believe the evidence supporting Evolution. Less than 1% of all scientists support the Creationist perspective.

The part I highlighted in green is particularly disturbing, because it plain says "don't worry about the facts ... they will just say they have better ones". (gee, you think?)

But the part that follows the green, not highlighted is the most disturbing. It says that students are to "challenge the teacher's assumptions". There are 2 reasons this works. First, and primary, because if they talk of God/the Bible, a public school teacher HAS to back off. They cannot challange a child's religion. IN other cases, they "win" because many teachers themselves have not been properly educated in science in general, but particularly in Evolution which was already facing objections when most of them were in school. Schools often backed off from teaching real Evolution, not becuase it lacked validity, but because they just did not want to spend the funds and time in court.

[AlgyTaylor]

]

If you would only study them in depth you would come to love and worship our little friends as well.

By all means, give me some sort of text to study that claims for leprachauns to be real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leinster
Tuatha Dé Danann

Study away.

Well, your first link makes no claim the leprechauns exist. Its just about the mythology behind them.
I did a search through The Book of Leinster, and did not find any mention of leprechauns. Perhaps you could clarify for me where in this book it is claimed they exist?

Alas I cannot, as I don't speak Irish Gaelic. It's in there somewhere, though.

I suggest you look again at that first link

Samuel Lover, writing in the 1831 describes the leprechaun as,

... quite a beau in his dress, notwithstanding, for he wears a red square-cut coat, richly laced with gold, and inexpressible of the same, cocked hat, shoes and buckles.[9]

I think that's a pretty clear statement that they do exist. You could also follow the references at the bottom of the page, which are more reliable than wikipedia.

[Snorri1234]

even though im pro evolution

Kinda like Pro Evolution Soccer?

The best football game.

I haven't played the latest version though.

[joecoolfrog]

If you used half the time you spent in this thread to actually read a good book on the matter, then you'd learn much more. (But please don't select a book by a preacher or those that appear on Oprah and such). Why don't read the most respected authors first? Hawkins, Dennet, Dawkins, perhaps W. James to understand a little about psychology and don't make of any feeling a revelation?, maybe some of Sartre to know a little about existentialism and absurdism? Maybe even some study of meaning?

This is an interesting list. Unless I am mistaken, you are listing scientists all on one side of the argument. Why not read up on some creation scientists, such as Dr Chuck Missler, or Dr Ken Ham (and actually consider what they say, and not say "Oh, they are creationists, so they must not know anything about science). Consider both sides, and come to your own conclusion.

Why oh why do you imagine that the great majority of the Scientific community are taking sides, they are simply looking for answers and thats it. On the other hand creationists have a firm agenda, they are attempting to defend a fixed idea and have no interest in anything that challenges that belief ( except to ridicule it ), that is the opposite of good scientific research which is overwhelmingly driven by the desire to question and reach new conclusions.

[AlgyTaylor]

This is an interesting list. Unless I am mistaken, you are listing scientists all on one side of the argument. Why not read up on some creation scientists, such as Dr Chuck Missler, or Dr Ken Ham (and actually consider what they say, and not say "Oh, they are creationists, so they must not know anything about science).

Ken Ham is the creation museum dude, isn't he? The one which has a man riding bareback on a dinosaur? I'm glad you've cited him ... young earth creationists are simply the best.

[Backglass]

Why oh why do you imagine that the great majority of the Scientific community are taking sides, they are simply looking for answers and thats it

Because the creationists are united with a single belief, they assume that "the other side" (Science) must also be like this. What they don't realize is that Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism that creationism does not have.

[Bavarian Raven]

Because the creationists are united with a single belief, they assume that "the other side" (Science) must also be like this. What they don't realize is that Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism that creationism does not have.

well said...

[a.sub]

Because the creationists are united with a single belief, they assume that "the other side" (Science) must also be like this. What they don't realize is that Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism that creationism does not have.

well said...

QFE & QFT