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.
Do any of you feel that creationist scientists simply picked the wrong line of work? That would be like someone who wants to become an electrical engineer but doesn't actually believe in electricity. He believes that light bulbs, radios, electric motors, etc. are all powered by God because afterall we can't even see electricity so it must be supernatural and he wants to expose the conspiracy that electricity comes from power plants and that's why we receive those electric bills. Most occupations don't require a belief in evolution or creationism and it really doesn't matter what you think in order to do your job effectively. It seems very clear to me that someone who has chosen to work as a scientist and studies geology, paleontology, biology or some other field in which the accepted body of scientific knowledge contradicts their religious beliefs then they are not able to effectively do their job.
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!
But it seems to be, in many cases, the educated against the uneducated; the lazy and those who study the world around them.
Sentence structure and spelling would help part of your argument.
Please provide any evidence against evolution, and not from a creationist site.
even worse if they are microbiologists, into pharmaceutics or geneticists. How the hell are you supposed to combat resistant strains of micro-organisms if you refuse to believe they evolved an immunity to the antibiotics. The person would be shooting penicillin at them till the end of days.
Please provide any evidence against evolution, and not from a creationist site.
Or some empirical evidence for creationism. Because each and every single time its finding holes in their made up version of evolution and then saying that if its not evolution then it must be creationism because of course those two are the only possibilities
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:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
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.
OK. But anything that lives must die, and leave a body. From your wiki article: The first predator to gain true imaging would have initiated an "arms race". Prey animals and competing predators alike would be forced to rapidly match or exceed any such capabilities to survive. Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel. Because they all got that memo.
Nobody knows how animals unrelated to the New Kid On The Block with eyes, would nevertheless know that they should grow eyes. Guess it's one of those 'gray areas.'
Every single 'half-breed' with 'half features' should also turn up somewhere, consistently. Consistently, not just once.
Asia Times Online :: China Business News - Why all fakes lead to China eBay Guides - Chinese Fossils, Amber, Antiques and Coins CHINESE FOSSILS Each year, thousands of trusting buyers are duped by both inexpensive and very expensive, highly realistic fakes. More troubling, even scientists have fallen prey to the extraordinary craftsmanship of the Chinese fake fossil artists. In 1999, highly recognized scientists along with National Geographic magazine presented an amazing new discovery of a feathered dinosaur discovered in the Liaoning Province of China. The bird with a dinosaur's tail was named ARCHAEORAPTOR. A year later, it was found to be a clever fake.
Fake fossils from china mean that a One Time Thing could be a forgery, which even experts can be fooled by. A consistent fossil record showing the same half-creature evolving to a higher level would at least be slightly convincing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
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.
I have to use science to prove science wrong? That's like creationists saying you have to use the bible to prove the bible wrong. We are stepping *out* of all boxes right now and talking as if both evolution and creationism were on display for us to actually think about, and we are not trapped inside either one (for the sake of discussion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
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.
You are doing the same thing which you berated me for doing, namely, viewing things from a skewed perspective, and oversimplifying. The core of the creationist belief is that an all-powerful god created everything, basically because he can. Whatever else your religious belief may be, that is the core. The core of the other side is that nothing created the universe from nothing, and then nothing sparked dirt, lightning, air, rocks, juices, and whatever other inorganic matter was floating around... To turn into self-healing, self-propagating, self-adapting, self-advancing life.
I generally avoid this forum, because it really always turns into a 'religious' debate, but if we leave the bible and all religions out of the discussion for a few posts, I still say that the core belief of the creationists makes more sense than the core belief of the scientists. Something doesn't come from nothing, ever. This is the main reason I struggle with the theory of evolution, because there is no Cause for the Effect. Everything that moves, emits energy, and is by some means observable in this universe, has one or another forces behind it. What is the force behind life? What forced inorganic matter together into a well-structured, self-repeating form which was greater than the sum of it's parts? And why does it continue to adapt in a manner which is not random, but has a pattern and an escalating structure? What is the force behind life?
If you (who could not exist) were placed in a time period before life emerged from nothing, you could not predict such a thing as life would ever exist, based on what you could observe at that time. If you had unlimited computing power, you could predict where the planets would be, when the stars would explode, how far the universe would stretch... You could not EVER predict that things would coalesce into a form which would eventually become self-aware and be having discussions such as this. It is a Super - Natural event.
I don't fault the scientific mind for wanting concrete answers to their questions of a god. However I doubt we will ever have a peek outside the universe, sans existence of our selves, where we will be able to see what caused it all to happen, and then take such knowledge back to earth in the form of a scientific study.
Every single 'half-breed' with 'half features' should also turn up somewhere, consistently. Consistently, not just once.
Asia Times Online :: China Business News - Why all fakes lead to China eBay Guides - Chinese Fossils, Amber, Antiques and Coins CHINESE FOSSILS Each year, thousands of trusting buyers are duped by both inexpensive and very expensive, highly realistic fakes. More troubling, even scientists have fallen prey to the extraordinary craftsmanship of the Chinese fake fossil artists. In 1999, highly recognized scientists along with National Geographic magazine presented an amazing new discovery of a feathered dinosaur discovered in the Liaoning Province of China. The bird with a dinosaur's tail was named ARCHAEORAPTOR. A year later, it was found to be a clever fake.
Yes, National Geographic did publish a finding on Archaeoraptor. However, what Creationists OFTEN leave out is that archaeoraptor was criticized from within the scientific community from the very get go. People in the scientific community were EXTREMELY skeptical of this "bird" and when they finally got a hold of it for their own examinations they found that it was indeed a forgery, National Geographic rescinded the article claiming it made a mistake, and I'm sure heads rolled somewhere in National Geographic land as well.
To go on further, the two fossils that were "glued together" (Yanonis and Microraptor) from China were indeed important fossil finds in and of themselves.
So, that's the other side of the story that Creation-land seems to forget mentioning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
Fake fossils from china mean that a One Time Thing could be a forgery, which even experts can be fooled by. A consistent fossil record showing the same half-creature evolving to a higher level would at least be slightly convincing.
Certainly it could. That's why empiricism is so important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
I have to use science to prove science wrong? That's like creationists saying you have to use the bible to prove the bible wrong. We are stepping *out* of all boxes right now and talking as if both evolution and creationism were on display for us to actually think about, and we are not trapped inside either one (for the sake of discussion).
*Yawn* You know better than that. How else do you explain things in the natural world? I'm not talking about "creation" I'm simply talking about how you explain things like atomic theory or gravity or electricity. It's not much different. There's not an exception to evolution just because it conflicts with a closed-minded biblical viewpoint. Evolution is science and just like all other methods of science, scientific testing (skeptical and often rigorous) is used to verify theories. Your ridiculous cannard is not the presumption that Creationism is. Creationism *knows* that God did everything and then tries to mold science to a Biblical viewpoint. At the current moment, science, through rigorous testing and obvious evidentiary finds has concluded that evolution is the most likely scenario for human development. Independent scientific findings support this unlike the independent scientific findings to support Creationism. There have been no "independent" scientific findings that support Creationism. Only severe lies that skew the data of ACTUAL science to fit a Biblical worldview. That's not science and that's exactly why, as the OP asked, Creationists don't publish anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
You are doing the same thing which you berated me for doing, namely, viewing things from a skewed perspective, and oversimplifying. The core of the creationist belief is that an all-powerful god created everything, basically because he can. Whatever else your religious belief may be, that is the core. The core of the other side is that nothing created the universe from nothing, and then nothing sparked dirt, lightning, air, rocks, juices, and whatever other inorganic matter was floating around... To turn into self-healing, self-propagating, self-adapting, self-advancing life.
If that were the belief behind evolution than I wouldn't believe it either. Your apparent lack of knowledge in how it works is what's truly disappointing about your argument. Perhaps if you made a valiant effort at teaching yourself how evolutionary theory ACTUALLY works instead of making up garbage like this straight out of Dr. Dino's handbook than perhaps you'd realize how ridiculous all of this sounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
I generally avoid this forum, because it really always turns into a 'religious' debate, but if we leave the bible and all religions out of the discussion for a few posts, I still say that the core belief of the creationists makes more sense than the core belief of the scientists. Something doesn't come from nothing, ever. This is the main reason I struggle with the theory of evolution, because there is no Cause for the Effect. Everything that moves, emits energy, and is by some means observable in this universe, has one or another forces behind it. What is the force behind life? What forced inorganic matter together into a well-structured, self-repeating form which was greater than the sum of it's parts? And why does it continue to adapt in a manner which is not random, but has a pattern and an escalating structure? What is the force behind life?
Explain to me how evolution has anything to do with this? We're talking about genetic variation caused by natural selection and survival of the fittest. Where on Earth were you taught that evolution tries to explain the origins of life? Or is this another science class presented to you by your local church?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
If you (who could not exist) were placed in a time period before life emerged from nothing, you could not predict such a thing as life would ever exist, based on what you could observe at that time. If you had unlimited computing power, you could predict where the planets would be, when the stars would explode, how far the universe would stretch... You could not EVER predict that things would coalesce into a form which would eventually become self-aware and be having discussions such as this. It is a Super - Natural event.
Evidence? Or are you just going to leave it at an argument from incredulity in which you claim that your argument cannot be falsified? Again, I fail to see how evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. Could you please highlight the part of Darwin's Origins of Species in which he claims such a thing? Because I don't remember reading it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaroscuro
I don't fault the scientific mind for wanting concrete answers to their questions of a god. However I doubt we will ever have a peek outside the universe, sans existence of our selves, where we will be able to see what caused it all to happen, and then take such knowledge back to earth in the form of a scientific study.
I thought you were trying to talk about the flaws in evolution??? Furthermore, explain to me how evolution has anything to do with a complete denial of God? I just don't get it. Or is this just something your church tells you because of reasons unknown? Go out and get a real education. Church is wonderful for a lot of people but not for a scientific education. Sorry.
Evolution is science and just like all other methods of science, scientific testing (skeptical and often rigorous) is used to verify theories. Your ridiculous cannard is not the presumption that Creationism is. Creationism *knows* that God did everything and then tries to mold science to a Biblical viewpoint. At the current moment, science, through rigorous testing and obvious evidentiary finds has concluded that evolution is the most likely scenario for human development.
Right. There is no group of scientists or internet wanna-be scientists, who has ever tried to 'mold' science to their own viewpoint. At the current moment, science has not answered a lot of questions about evolution, which is why it is still just a theory. Though you can teach a theory, you cannot say it is the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
I thought you were trying to talk about the flaws in evolution??? Furthermore, explain to me how evolution has anything to do with a complete denial of God? I just don't get it. Or is this just something your church tells you because of reasons unknown? Go out and get a real education. Church is wonderful for a lot of people but not for a scientific education. Sorry.
It ties in with it. If god made everything, then he continues to make everything. If not, then the 'unknowable force' which made life, continues to make life happen. We should be able to discover this force, and harness it for our own uses, the same as we have electricity, gravity, etc. The 'flaws in evolution' come from the fact that there is (supposedly) no higher game plan, and meandering, killing, breeding life just eventually 'finds it's own way there' through random mutation, and survival of the fittest. Except that survival of the fittest is bogus, and life perpetuates bad traits as well as good. Often weaker creatures survive while the strongest die.
The word Origin means beginning, if you were not aware. And so far it's very few individuals who believe wholeheartedly in evolution, and yet also believe that god started life. This is of course a possiblity, but not a very widely accepted one. So we have the two camps, and the scientific camp doesn't care to answer how life came about in the first place.
Any force which existed "back then" must exist now, even in the room you are sitting in. We should be able to find this force of evolution and life, and figure out exactly what it is. Scientists should do this, because creationists don't do research as you have pointed out. But they don't, and they never will. The burden of proof is on the scientific community, not the creationists. Creationists are content to believe what they believe, and their beliefs are rooted in tradition and everything else. Science is constantly changing and uncovering 'truth,' so they are the ones who should be tasked with discovering just exactly what sparked life. But they don't tackle it, and so they leave themselves open to ridicule... Because they (and you, who believe life came from absolutely nothing, and continues to evolve for absolutely no reason) put forth that creationists do not study, think, or care to understand anything. Fine. Figure out what really happened in that one moment in time, and verify it repeatedly through the same experiment, and publish it, and let it be known that yes, there is a way for life to spring from sterile, inorganic matter, and we can prove it over and over. Then, even creation believing scientists could perform said experiment, and admit that god had no hand in the birth of life, or it's continuing advancement. Until that point, there is no reason to believe a NON-THEORY. A theory which does not even seek to answer the question. The statement goes: "God did not create life. We don't quite know what did, and we really don't want to answer that. As for evolution, it goes something like this!" As I said before, you may think the view that god created life is backward and ignorant, but it's better than just a big fat untouchable question mark.
The first predator to gain true imaging would have initiated an "arms race". Prey animals and competing predators alike would be forced to rapidly match or exceed any such capabilities to survive. Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel. Because they all got that memo.
Nobody knows how animals unrelated to the New Kid On The Block with eyes, would nevertheless know that they should grow eyes. Guess it's one of those 'gray areas.'
Please reread the whole paragraph you are quoting from - it will be clearer what the author is saying if you don't try to yank things out of context. Here's a hint - the author was comparing two different views of how this happened, and you quote half of one description to try to make a point.
Quote:
Every single 'half-breed' with 'half features' should also turn up somewhere, consistently. Consistently, not just once.
You're aware that not every organism that ever lived is preserved, right? That fossilization is a pretty rare event? That's a good thing, because if so there'd be no raw material left to build new living things, but it does kind of kill this line of your argument.
Quote:
I have to use science to prove science wrong?
That's kind of the point of this thread. But to be more specific, you'd use observations about the real world to prove a particular scientific theory incorrect.
And thanks for admitting that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.
I've mentioned several times that I have no problem with people taking their religious views on faith. Just don't try to claim that they are just different interpretations of the evidence. If they were, you'd have no problem showing the evidence that supports your case. You can't, which is fine, but it shows that the evidence really does point just one way.
Quote:
The core of the other side is that nothing created the universe from nothing, and then nothing sparked dirt, lightning, air, rocks, juices, and whatever other inorganic matter was floating around... To turn into self-healing, self-propagating, self-adapting, self-advancing life.
That's not true. Evolution covers none of the things you mentioned. And add to that the fact that many religious people have no problem with evolution or the rest of science, and you'll see that your claim makes no sense.
Quote:
I generally avoid this forum, because it really always turns into a 'religious' debate, but if we leave the bible and all religions out of the discussion for a few posts, I still say that the core belief of the creationists makes more sense than the core belief of the scientists.
The only thing creationists have going for them is their peculiar interpretation of the Bible. Ignore that, and creationism goes away, as there's nothing else that would even make us think it might be a possibility.
Quote:
Something doesn't come from nothing, ever.
Including gods, correct? Or is there some sort of special exception to this universal rule you've fabricated that excludes magical creator deities?
Quote:
What is the force behind life?
Vitalistic theories of life died a few centuries ago, for good reason. Keep mysticism and magic out of science, please.
Quote:
I don't fault the scientific mind for wanting concrete answers to their questions of a god. However I doubt we will ever have a peek outside the universe, sans existence of our selves, where we will be able to see what caused it all to happen, and then take such knowledge back to earth in the form of a scientific study.
Evolution specifically and science in general have nothing to say about non-scientific claims like the existence of god. Science's purpose is much more useful than debating that sort of stuff.
The only thing creationists have going for them is their peculiar interpretation of the Bible. Ignore that, and creationism goes away, as there's nothing else that would even make us think it might be a possibility.
Wrong. People the world over (since the dawn of time) have believed we were created, and did not happen by chance. You would like to believe that if you destroyed every bible on earth, everyone would conveniently forget they believed in anything, and would all become hardcore atheists.
Evolution specifically and science in general have nothing to say about non-scientific claims like the existence of god. Science's purpose is much more useful than debating that sort of stuff.
And in a million furthur years of scientific study, having (supposedly) stripped the universe of everything except what you can see with a microscope, what will it have gained you? Religious people live longer, have better outlooks on life, and tend to not be so pessimistic and skeptical of everything (including their fellow human beings). You act as if science is the one thing every human should pour their heart into. If by "that sort of stuff" you mean things like love, mercy, and goodwill, you are creating a sad humanity indeed. Not to mention that most of the leaders who killed civilian populations were atheist DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
Ataturk, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot. Guess they were 'thinning the herd' for evolution?
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.
