Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did find it curious that sanspeur listed some articles published either in journals or proceedings written by creationists that were not about creationism, and then said that there were articles that were also published not about creationism. That was a little odd was it not?
Just one example taken from the list, Jan Peckzis. Jan is a teacher, and uses this name when he publishes articles that are not related to creationism. However, when he does write on creationism, the articles are not in peer reviewed scientific journals, and he uses the nom de plume,JohnWoodmorappe .
Actually that part of the post was pasted from the web site and I didn't notice the contradiction.
I will agree with you that life is very complex even at the microscopic level and that it truly is remarkable that we live on a planet that's populated by countless organisms but we have two very different points of view as to how life came into existence and how long mankind and even the entire universe have existed. The comment that I quoted fits creationists perfectly because that book is the Bible and you refuse to accept anything that contradicts it even if it's nature itself. People who believe in evolution are flexible and many people like myself are very interested in the latest developments and discoveries that are reshaping various details of our evolutionary lineage. You say we've accepted the preposterous (except you spelled it wrong) but when you lay out these two competing belief systems, creationism and evolution, and compare in great detail the evidence that is presented, supporting evidence from other sources, and look at the total picture I would have to say that if this was boxing match that creationism has gotten it's butt kicked.
This is a forum and sometime you misspell things. If I was printing in an book I would have gone over it many times as well as my editor. Reguardless of the spelling you still understood the meaning so you are being rediculous.
You seem to be confused, evolutionist will never even if confronted with evidence change their basic belief. I have seen it when the evidence is contrary to evolution the evidence gets shelved with the hopes that some other evolutionary scientist will figure out why it dosen't fit the model or they give some ambiguous answer. like the ground was reworked even though there is no evidence to support the conclusion.
So, both evolutionist and creationist hold to their core beliefs. Creationist believe that God created the world just as the bible says and evolutionist say that God does not exist and there is a material source for the world. Neither will compromise on these axioms regardless of the evidence.
Creationism is not getting its butt kicked. This is not a boxing match!
Reguardless of the spelling you still understood the meaning so you are being rediculous.
Reguardless is spelled regardless and rediculous is spelled ridiculous. I'm just kidding with you Nikk.
Quote:
You seem to be confused, evolutionist will never even if confronted with evidence change their basic belief.
You're definitely wrong on that statement, the details and all of the twists and turns that evolution has taken are constantly being updated as more data becomes available. Evolution is always being revised and that is how science operates.
Quote:
Creationism is not getting its butt kicked. This is not a boxing match!
I was speaking metaphorically and now that I think about it I believe that evolution would have scored a knockout punch in the first few seconds of round one! Nikk, you need to have a sense of humor about these things, I'm just trying to have a friendly debate and mean no disrespect to anyone.
I wish this went both ways. People drag down Christian faith in Creationism so why not science? Science is not infallible. It takes faith to believe in an imperfect practice such as science. Science does use guesswork, ask any scientist.
Here's the problem I'm talking about. Science may initially use guesswork, but it then backs it up with real evidence. Scientists do research to find out which of their guesses correspond to the real world and which don't. The ones that don't are discarded and the ones that do are refined into useful theories.
Can you name anything useful produced via creationism over the past century, aside from lots of income for lawyers?
And don't confuse creationism with Christianity. Many Christians have significant problems with creationism, just like non-Christians do.
Quote:
It amazes me that someone can put such absolute faith and trust in something as imperfect as science.
No one does this. Stop beating up a strawman.
Quote:
Non-believers say that they don't want Christians forcing their beliefs on them. What about evolutionists forcing their beliefs on us and our children in schools?
In science classes, science should be taught. Evolution is science, creationism is religious dogma, so it's obvious which should be taught in school science classes.
And it's pretty misleading to try to conflate a scientific theory supported by evidence with an article of religious faith which requires believers to ignore the real world to make their belief reasonable. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about originally. It's never just "we want to believe", it's " we want to believe and we're a political force that's going to try to get your kids to believe, too, using your tax dollars".
Here's the problem I'm talking about. Science may initially use guesswork, but it then backs it up with real evidence. Scientists do research to find out which of their guesses correspond to the real world and which don't. The ones that don't are discarded and the ones that do are refined into useful theories.
Actually, there is never any pure truth derived from science, and this 'real world' you speak of is constantly being redefined. Science always uses guesswork, forever. Everything is ALWAYS open to further discovery, better methods, or new theories. Also, every bit of data, every shred of evidence, and every idea, thought, theory, and hypothesis, is OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. Many scientific 'discoveries' and studies use the exact same set of data and figures, and come to ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS. And those conclusions can still be brought down by new data, new conclusions, and new theories. Will there eventually be one big scientific theory of everything? I say yes. In probably two or three thousand years, if we haven't nuked ourselves off the planet, scientists will generally agree they have everything figured out, and it all makes perfect sense. And then a new scientist will be born with the Einstein gene, and he (or she) will shake the foundations of science as we know it (in the future) and all of a sudden everything we thought we knew will be outdated and open to interpretation again. The Bible and it's believers? Oh, they'll probably still believe God created the universe, and everything works in harmony because He says it should. It's a simplistic view of the universe, but it never changes, and it MAKES SENSE if you believe it. If you believe there is no God, and you only believe in scientific discovery and conclusions, you will literally never stand on ground that makes perfect sense. The ground you stand on is now subject to Quantum Theory. Who knows when scientists will have their own Bible of everything. I say.... Never! Until never, good luck agreeing on what you all believe about the universe, scientists .
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Can you name anything useful produced via creationism over the past century, aside from lots of income for lawyers?
A consistent theory of existence? A) There is God, an all-powerful, all-knowing being who is outside of our existence. He was bored, and created the universe in a little display of his power. He was bored with that, so he created simple beings with freewill. He let them roam in his little antfarm, and watches as they try to figure stuff out. When they die in their short little lives, they either get to come live with Him (if they believed in him) or they are eternally separated from Him (if they denied him). And thus, the whole theory is fleshed out along that matrix of belief. It won't change, it's not open to new theories, and as backwards as it may seem, it's better than your theory of everything, which is a thousand little question marks stamped all over the universe, and just waiting for a final conclusion which will never be satisfactory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
In science classes, science should be taught. Evolution is science, creationism is religious dogma, so it's obvious which should be taught in school science classes.
True. Science should be taught in science class. I just think it's funny that every science book teaching evolutionary theory convenently skips the "How" of evolution, for example how the mutations of species (which MUST have existed), which were not adaptive and successful, completely disappeared from the fossil record. Where are all the incomplete animals? Where are all the monkeys with partially formed lungs that didn't work, and so they died? Where are the animals that randomly mutated bone around their anus, thus killing them, and taking them out of the gene pool? We haven't discovered any halves, parts, almosts, could-have-beens, or any other 'random mutation.' We have only discovered whole fossils of creatures which were complete, fully-functional, and thrived and reproduced during their given era. Oh! I almost forgot reproduction! Lets pick the first creature that grew perfect eyes (how did that come about?). Now, this creature grew up inside it's own little world. Where did it find a mate which also had this stunning, perfect, mutation? Do two creatures mutate at the same time, within a mile of eachother? Is that an evolutionary rule?! Evolution has a lot to answer about evolution, and so far it has done a cracker jack job. Where are the birds with only one wing or weird feathers that didn't work? Et cetera. Random mutation is a joke. God makes creatures that are whole and fit perfectly into the puzzle, and this explains how there can be two at the same time to reproduce. There is an intelligence and a plan behind all of creation. At least it makes sense
True. Science should be taught in science class. I just think it's funny that every science book teaching evolutionary theory convenently skips the "How" of evolution
Funny, i just took a break from revising biology(exams 20/05, 13/06 and 18/06) and I've yet to see them skip the how. In fact i wish they did and saved me a lot of trouble
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
for example how the mutations of species (which MUST have existed), which were not adaptive and successful, completely disappeared from the fossil record.
No they didn't just because you don't have the insight to do your own research doesn't mean you have to spread lies all around:
Where are all the incomplete animals? Where are all the monkeys with partially formed lungs that didn't work, and so they died? Where are the animals that randomly mutated bone around their anus, thus killing them, and taking them out of the gene pool? We haven't discovered any halves, parts, almosts, could-have-beens, or any other 'random mutation.'
You can't seriously believe that random mutations do not happen because they do and have for as long as man has walked along the earth. It happens with every living thing and i need only walk a few miles to see such things
Prader-willis syndrome, Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia and even cancer all come from random mutations some of which are passed on into future generations
Its believed that this not only happened once but around 8 times independently
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
Now, this creature grew up inside it's own little world. Where did it find a mate which also had this stunning, perfect, mutation? Do two creatures mutate at the same time, within a mile of eachother? Is that an evolutionary rule?!
not quite. If you took the time to read up on the basics of it then youd understand that evolution doesn't deal with gigantic steps where a species gives birth to a radically new one but rather with really tiny steps which then add up into big ones. Once in a blue moon a mutation gives rise to something which is a tiny bit different but genetically close enough to still breed with the non-mutated members. After many generations this mutation becomes part of the gene pool and this process happens over and over with other small mutations until the species now look different from before the series of mutations.
An important thing to notice here is that its not just the good mutations that get passed on but the neutral ones which make up most random mutations
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
Evolution has a lot to answer about evolution, and so far it has done a cracker jack job.
Says the person ignorant of what it says. Can you honestly tell me that you've took the time to research and learn about evolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
Where are the birds with only one wing or weird feathers that didn't work? Et cetera. Random mutation is a joke. God makes creatures that are whole and fit perfectly into the puzzle, and this explains how there can be two at the same time to reproduce. There is an intelligence and a plan behind all of creation. At least it makes sense
Well then i suggest you come back down to reality. My best suggestion is to visit a nativity ward and ask where they keep all the jars with the babies who died before birth because of mutations. Yes its terrible to see conjoined twins but no one ever said reality was roses and unicorns.
The birds with one wing or weird feathers that don't work do not survive...Only mutations that give a creature an advantage or are at least neutral are passed on to future generations..That is what makes evolution work.
For instance this duck would never survive in the wild.
Actually, there is never any pure truth derived from science, and this 'real world' you speak of is constantly being redefined. Science always uses guesswork, forever. Everything is ALWAYS open to further discovery, better methods, or new theories.
Much better then clinging onto dogma that's known to be wrong, simply because it's a matter of faith.
Quote:
Also, every bit of data, every shred of evidence, and every idea, thought, theory, and hypothesis, is OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. Many scientific 'discoveries' and studies use the exact same set of data and figures, and come to ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS. And those conclusions can still be brought down by new data, new conclusions, and new theories.
I think you're oversimplifying here. In cases where the data is extremely limited this might be the case, but I don't think it's generally true. Any examples you want to show here?
Quote:
The Bible and it's believers? Oh, they'll probably still believe God created the universe, and everything works in harmony because He says it should. It's a simplistic view of the universe, but it never changes, and it MAKES SENSE if you believe it.
The "never changes" part ignores the changes that took place during the majority of the church's history. Modern "scientific" creationism is an invention of the late 19th and 20th centuries, and has evolved considerably as time has gone on and its few concrete claims have been consistently proven wrong.
At least science is making progress as it changes. Creationism is just trying to hide itself to make it easier to sneak into public schools.
Quote:
A consistent theory of existence?
What you've described isn't a theory - it doesn't explain or predict anything. An all powerful god can do anything, so any outcome is equally likely. That's not particularly useful.
Quote:
True. Science should be taught in science class. I just think it's funny that every science book teaching evolutionary theory convenently skips the "How" of evolution, for example how the mutations of species (which MUST have existed), which were not adaptive and successful, completely disappeared from the fossil record. Where are all the incomplete animals?
A "failed" mutation will not always result in an incomplete animal, or half an animal, whatever that means. It's not like evolution produces the left half of a dog and has to wait for the right half to evolve to catch up.
Quote:
Where are all the monkeys with partially formed lungs that didn't work, and so they died?
Lungs were well established millions of years before monkeys evolved, so I wouldn't expect to ever find this in the fossil record.
Quote:
Where are the animals that randomly mutated bone around their anus, thus killing them, and taking them out of the gene pool?
Again, what the heck are you talking about? Does anyone who knows any science actually expect to find this, or is it just another creationist misrepresentation of science?
Snipped more misunderstandings of how biology works.
Quote:
God makes creatures that are whole and fit perfectly into the puzzle, and this explains how there can be two at the same time to reproduce.
Here's where you post convincing evidence that your claims are true. It's ironic you spend a whole post beating up on the lack of evidence for evolution, yet can't even produce one instance of a peer reviewed paper showing some tiny shred of evidence for creation. That should tell you something right there, and is the topic of the thread. Step up, show us what we've been missing instead of being an example of the games cited by the original poster.
Quote:
There is an intelligence and a plan behind all of creation. At least it makes sense
Really? The all powerful creator of the universe made people from dust, they ate an apple so he cursed them, they got even more wicked so he drowned most of them (leaving no evidence behind of that event), and then let them be for a while until he cloned and split himself into two but remained one so he could die for himself to save them from his own anger towards them? That's your definition of making sense? I sense a double standard here.
My error. It was fine. They structured the sentences a little weird, like they were setting up a contrast, when they were only reiterating the point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
