Theory of Evolution vs the Hypothesis of Creation (America, God, beliefs)
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.
Though we cannot test "God" or the "spirit world" we can test many of the things that the bible claims
This I agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
if these are provable and test true, then we must conclude that the things the bible claims that cannot be tested must also be true.
This I don't. As I'm sure you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, we'd all believe in Blemmyes (headless men). They are after all spoken of by numerous ancient explorers and historians, some of which also wrote about true things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
If a person believes "There is no God", the ultimate conclusion is that evolution is true.
Preposterous. Evolution is not the only naturalistic explanation for life's diversity and complexity that's ever been proposed - and certainly not the only conceivable one. Ever heard of Lamarckism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
If a person believe "There is a God", the ultimate conclusion is Creation.
You do realize that the theory of evolution is accepted by the Catholic church? You know, 1.2 billion believers worldwide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
So, a fossil when looked at by an evolutionist will appear old (6 millions year), while the same fossil will appear old to the creationist (6 thousand year).
And then it is tested in a number of different ways until its age can be properly estimated, and various steps are taken to eliminate all personal bias. Ever heard of the scientific method?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Isotopic dating methods are affected by these presuppositions and that is why fossils are dated far older then the test data by the scientists, and far younger by the creationist.
This post is a good example of the confusion used by Creationist and Evolution. Evolution does not claim to know how life got its start, it only address the evolution of species. The changes a species goes through in it's lifes progression due to internal genetic mutations or external influence.
It is a proven fact that animals change over time, look at the human animal, over the past few 100 years man has, on average, grown taller. If you believe in creation, then one has to justify the diversity of the human species, different skin colors, hair colors, eye color ect. This is evolution at work and how the human species will look 1000's of years from now, no one knows, but what we do know is you either adapt or you die off.
I think it is you that are confused, read Darwins book "The origin of the species". Evolutionist do claim to look into where life came from, whether steam vents in the ocean or as Dawkins says, "the earth was seeded by aliens". Has Dawkins ever seen an alien? Yet he beleives that the earth was seeded by them. And some think me strange for believing God at his word!
We are not growing taller. In fact we are just at an average. In the past man has been as tall as 9' and as small as 3' fully grown. Do we see this today? Yes. Has anything changed, hair color, skin color? No, its the same as it has always been.
The fact is that every thing changes. For example I do not look like my father (exactly). This is genetics. Also some animals find themselves apart from the rest of their kind and their specific genetics become pronounced in their own population. Have they evolved? No, this is natural selection. But throw these animal back into the general population and their genetic will average out again.
An example of this is the dog. Many varieties bread out, but throw them all together and all you'll end up with is dog.
This is just what God said each animal kind will produce its own kind.
This I agree with.This I don't. As I'm sure you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, we'd all believe in Blemmyes (headless men). They are after all spoken of by numerous ancient explorers and historians, some of which also wrote about true things.
Preposterous. Evolution is not the only naturalistic explanation for life's diversity and complexity that's ever been proposed - and certainly not the only conceivable one. Ever heard of Lamarckism?
You do realize that the theory of evolution is accepted by the Catholic church? You know, 1.2 billion believers worldwide?
And then it is tested in a number of different ways until its age can be properly estimated, and various steps are taken to eliminate all personal bias. Ever heard of the scientific method?
Fixed.
Blemmyes are not in the bible
We are talking about Creation/Evolution not Lamarckism
The Catholic church has gone apostate on the matter, Why because it is not biblical.
I have heard of the scientific method, and yes it is used in science. Unfortunately evolution is not science. It is a type of story-telling that uses science when it is supported by it. Many people think evolution is scientific, but it is not.
Isotopic dating methods are not fixed. If you look at the reports it is just a bunch of numbers that must be interpreted. Have you ever wondered why a technician would require the exact layer that the fossil came out of? So that the date can be coaxed into an acceptable spectrum for that layer. Is this scientific? No! Also the dates that Isotopic dating gives are many times smaller then are required for evolution. Why are these numbers inflated? To match the story that evolutionist have created.
Nikki, if you have read "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" you find that Darwin is talking about how animals change and evolve by the means of "natural selection", this is evolution at work. If a genetic mutation is helpful then the animal survives and the mutation is passed down, if not, the animal dies off. Given enough time the animal will evolve into a new species, this does not mean it evolves into an entirely different life form. In Taxonomy the "species" is the lowest rank, therefore, more subject to change and adaption. The higher you up the taxonomy scale the more difficult change is.
Darwin is talking about how species change, not how life itself came into being, that is a total different field of study.
I think it is you that are confused, read Darwins book "The origin of the species".
I'm sorry, but your ignorance of the theory of evolution is showing. Please read a bit on the subject, even the Wikipedia page if you want. I don't understand how you can attempt to debate a theory when you don't even know its subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Evolutionist do claim to look into where life came from, whether steam vents in the ocean
No they don't. The origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolutionary biologists simply assume that life started at some point and go on from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
or as Dawkins says, "the earth was seeded by aliens". Has Dawkins ever seen an alien? Yet he beleives that the earth was seeded by them.
No he doesn't. Please provide your evidence for this affirmation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
We are not growing taller. In fact we are just at an average.
Actually, the human race has been growing over time on average, but I think it has more to do with better conditions of life than evolution. Evolution does not work on such small scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Also some animals find themselves apart from the rest of their kind and their specific genetics become pronounced in their own population. Have they evolved? No, this is natural selection. But throw these animal back into the general population and their genetic will average out again.
Except if they've become so different that they cannot have viable descendants with the original population. This has been observed on a number of organisms that can reproduce quickly, such as insects, and various plants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
This is just what God said each animal kind will produce its own kind.
What is your definition of "kind"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Blemmyes are not in the bible
You misunderstood my point. You claimed that if we can prove part of the bible we have to believe all of it. I deny this by using a counter-example: we have proved a number of Strabo's claims, but that doesn't mean we should accept the existence of Blemmyes without additional evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
The Catholic church has gone apostate on the matter, Why because it is not biblical.
Whether they are "right" or not is irrelevant. It is an undeniable example of believers who do not accept literal creation, which counters your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
I have heard of the scientific method, and yes it is used in science. Unfortunately evolution is not science. It is a type of story-telling that uses science when it is supported by it. Many people think evolution is scientific, but it is not.
It is accepted by qualified scientists who use the scientific method. That makes it science as far as I'm concerned. Unless you have evidence of a worldwide conspiracy involving millions of scientists, some of which believers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Isotopic dating methods are not fixed. If you look at the reports it is just a bunch of numbers that must be interpreted. Have you ever wondered why a technician would require the exact layer that the fossil came out of? So that the date can be coaxed into an acceptable spectrum for that layer. Is this scientific? No!
What exactly are your qualifications to make such bold statements about isotopic dating? Can you back up your opinion with peer-reviewed publications? Why wasn't this "flaw" noticed by the millions of scientists who use isotopic dating and have corrected and improved their methodology when necessary? Worldwide conspiracy again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Also the dates that Isotopic dating gives are many times smaller then are required for evolution. Why are these numbers inflated? To match the story that evolutionist have created.
I entered kindergarten in 1945 and graduated from high school in 1958.
I entered college in 1966 and finished graduate school in 1972.
I had many science and biology classes all through my education and I never heard of "Creationism" until some time in the 80's.
When Evolution was studied there may have been a passing mention of people who didn't believe it, but they were taken as seriously as people who still believed that the earth was flat.
What happened in the last 20 years to all of a sudden warp the minds of a huge portion of the population and make them lose their power of rational thought?
After perusing these boards for a few weeks I have come to the conclusion that (many) creationists use the word theory incorrectly. Or, they don't understand what it means to use the word theory in regard to scientific conversations. For some, I'm sure it's merely ignorance talking (note: ignorance is NOT the same as stupidity). For others, I suspect it may be an inflammatory way to try to poke the bear for a reaction. And a reaction it does receive, with evolutionists repeatedly trying to explain that the creationist argument of "evolution is ONLY a theory" is an incorrect statement, and that the word theory is being used in error.
In terms of scientific conversations (ie, discussions about evolution, etc) the word theory tends to mean something along the lines of:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
Ta da, simple as that. However, the creationists that refuse to recognize this term seem to think it's interchangeable with the word hypothesis or conjecture. Creationism is a hypothesis, basically defined as follows:
"A supposition; a proposition or principle which is supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a conclusion or inference for proof of the point in question; something not proved, but assumed for the purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an occurrence."
Creationists hypothesize that the universe exists because a deity created it. This is not a theory, as there are no facts to back it up, and it is not currently (if ever) testable. The funny thing is, creation and evolution don't necessarily have to be at odds with each other. It would be a lot more logical if creationists lashed out against abiogenesis rather than evolution, since abiogenesis and creation both deal with where/how life originally came about, and not how it changed to exhibit all the variations we observe now.
In any case, the point of this post is this: if creationists and evolutionists can't even agree on the meaning of a simple word, how can they ever truly have an intelligent discussion on the subject? And, will this ever change? Will they ever have a meeting of the minds over two simple words...theory and hypothesis?
At what point did evolution move from "hypothesis" to "theory"? What repeated "tests" had been done?
Nikki, if you have read "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" you find that Darwin is talking about how animals change and evolve by the means of "natural selection", this is evolution at work. If a genetic mutation is helpful then the animal survives and the mutation is passed down, if not, the animal dies off. Given enough time the animal will evolve into a new species, this does not mean it evolves into an entirely different life form. In Taxonomy the "species" is the lowest rank, therefore, more subject to change and adaption. The higher you up the taxonomy scale the more difficult change is.
Darwin is talking about how species change, not how life itself came into being, that is a total different field of study.
This is standard foder of the pro-evolutionist. Abiogenisis is a different field. It has been separated out because evolutionist including Darwin could not explain it. The "swept it under the rug", so to speak.
I'm sorry, but your ignorance of the theory of evolution is showing. Please read a bit on the subject, even the Wikipedia page if you want. I don't understand how you can attempt to debate a theory when you don't even know its subject.
No they don't. The origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolutionary biologists simply assume that life started at some point and go on from there.
No he doesn't. Please provide your evidence for this affirmation.
Actually, the human race has been growing over time on average, but I think it has more to do with better conditions of life than evolution. Evolution does not work on such small scale.
Except if they've become so different that they cannot have viable descendants with the original population. This has been observed on a number of organisms that can reproduce quickly, such as insects, and various plants.
What is your definition of "kind"?
You misunderstood my point. You claimed that if we can prove part of the bible we have to believe all of it. I deny this by using a counter-example: we have proved a number of Strabo's claims, but that doesn't mean we should accept the existence of Blemmyes without additional evidence.
Whether they are "right" or not is irrelevant. It is an undeniable example of believers who do not accept literal creation, which counters your claim.
It is accepted by qualified scientists who use the scientific method. That makes it science as far as I'm concerned. Unless you have evidence of a worldwide conspiracy involving millions of scientists, some of which believers?
What exactly are your qualifications to make such bold statements about isotopic dating? Can you back up your opinion with peer-reviewed publications? Why wasn't this "flaw" noticed by the millions of scientists who use isotopic dating and have corrected and improved their methodology when necessary? Worldwide conspiracy again?
Prove it.
Yes, I know evolution.
Dawkins said this with his own mouth.
"Kind" is in reference to the bible. The term species is badly defined word. Kind refers to a created kind. This would be the dog/wolf kind or the Horse/donkey/zebra kind, etc...
No conspiracy, just the problem with isotopic dating and the problems associated with fitting the data into a uniformatary time frame.
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.
