Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[deceangli]

Round and round we go - this thread is retarded.

And yet strangely compelling . . .

[walnutwatson]

I like retarded things.

[walnutwatson]

There's a great Neitzsche quote that eplains why this argument occurs on all forum all the time, it goes something like "If you seek happiness and peace of mind then believe, if you would be a student of the truth, inquire"

I think it sums up religion and rationalism quite nicely.

[Gregrios]

Could someone please explain to me where the one celled orginism came from along with space, stars, and planets?

I must of been sleeping during that lesson.

[Neoteny]

Your mom.

[Gregrios]

Your mom.

Nicely done on the "sarcastic dodge".

[Neoteny]

Abiogenesis is a bit of a distraction from a discussion of evolution.

[Gregrios]

Abiogenesis is a bit of a distraction from a discussion of evolution.

Oh stupid me. I thought it was because you had no answer.

[Neoteny]

I have an answer.

Your mom.

[Gregrios]

I have an answer.

Your mom.

Then that would make me .......!

[Neoteny]

I'll answer your question with a question:

What was the skin color of Velociraptor mongoliensis?

Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

Isn't that a favorite creationist argument anyway?

[deceangli]

I don't think we should be abashed about not knowing stuff. I haven't a f*cking clue how this lot got started (you know, life, stars etc), and there's nothing wrong with being humble about it, and accepting that we might never be able to comprehend everything.

That isn't the same as saying "oh well, I'd better believe the bible stories my teacher told me when I was seven, and be grateful I didn't grow up in a country where they get their stories out of a different book".

[PLAYER57832]

Propaganda is not the same as advertising. Promoting an idea to further your cause is not the same as "selling" something.


If I create a site dedicated to promoting creationism and calling everyone else gaynoobfags, I am not selling anything but spreading an idea to invade minds.

However, creating a website dedicated to the promotion of darwinism and calling everyone else uneducated is for the greater good, right?

This is completely off topic, so answer in another thread if you wish to continue, but how is putting forward a website on a man who created an idea that permeates our entire real scientific world, that is only controversial in a few religious groups, comparable to a political ideology that is based on loose data?

Players, come on. It's out of place for Martin to give his opinion on this, but OK for you to throw in your shot as if it's the last word on the subject? Really I'd come to expect better from you.

The scientific debate is not as one-sided as you make it out. This very statement shows that your point is the result of propaganda:

...our entire real scientific world,

This is a great piece of circular logic. All the "real" scientists are evolutionist because you reject all of the creationist scientists as "real" since they believe that unscientific theory. How do we know it's unscientific? Well, none of the "real" scientists believe in it! Kind of begs the question.

NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Creationists are not considered real scientists because they do not follow the scientific method. They start thinking they know what is true and then go out and seek data to support their ideas and ignore or reject anything that does not fit their pre-conceived ideas.

A real scientist starts by NOT knowing, but looking, seeing, observing and testing. When they look at the evidence, they get ideas. Sometimes those ideas are considered crazy, sometimes not. Those ideas that get nobel prizes often start out as pretty crazy concepts that some scientist just thought might be true.
HOWEVER, all scientists then go out and test their ideas. IF, and only if they gain evidence, then it might graduate to the position of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not "just a guess" as Creationists like to claim. It is an idea, not yet proven, perhaps completely unproveable, perhaps proveable at some point, that is backed by evidence. It is not a fact, it could be false, however, it is far more than just a simple guess.

Evolutionists and creationists both examine the fossil evidence with the supposition that it fits into a particular model, and presuppose certain processes involved. The only difference is that the creationists admit it, and so are actually more objective. You just happen to agree with one of the sets of assumptions and not the other.

First, NO SCIENTIST, be they a paleontologist (as those who study fossils are now called) or in another field assumes much of anything. The study of science is precisely about NOT making assumptions. The reasons there are strict methodologies are to get around biases. They certainly did not start out with any "pre-supposed model" as you claim. Just the opposite. IN FACT, up until Darwin came along, the assumption of most was that the earth was young. I won't get into the religious aspects here since Widowmakers has defined this as a non-theistic evolution thread. However, while Genesis time was always historically considered to be inexact, that "days" meant an undefined segment of time, people in the Middle Ages (European culture anyway) had a hard time imagining anything like a million year old Earth. It was just beyond their scope of reasoning. So were a lot of things .. like the idea that , that the Earth could revolve around the sun, that the earth could be round, or even that people could be of differant color, have very differant cultures and still be intelligent.

The assumptions scientist make are some of the assumptions you make as well, such as that Martin Rowe eluded to... if I observe and animal doing xyz, then it is likely that same animal can do xyz again, it might even be possible for another animal to do it (though that would take further evidence and observation). That the temperature at which ice freezes is likely the temperature at which ice (identical in composition, of course) has frozen and likely will freeze, within this known universe and known time.

Even so, a scientist, a good scientist, is always aware that those are assumptions. At some point, though, we just have to accept that tommorrow will come. If it doesn't... there is no point in worrying anyway.

HOWEVER, the differance is pretty great. Creationists do NOT actually look at the same fossil record. Creationists neatly exclude large portions that don't seem to fit within their beliefs. Transition fossils? No matter how many are found "they just don't exist". When some are acknowledged, further, tighter and tighter demands and rules are placed. "Oh, okay, so the Ceolocanth (actually a living animal) find are thick and the scales primative, but to try and claim it is somehow related to these fossils ... is just plain silly!" "A real transition species would have to have not just xyz, but cef as well!" If we find one with both xyz and cef, then its "oops... no "d".. doesn't count!" ad infinitum.

There was a recent article in National Geographic that talked about Darwin's observations of sloths and how he compared them to fossil remains found on various islands. Of course, you were never taught any of this because it would not fit with your teachers ideas and beliefs.




Neither side is scientifically proven, but the fossil evidence is actually at least as consistent with the creationist model. Evolutionists in recent years had to invent the "Cambrian Explosion": to explain why all types of creatures appear suddenly in the fossil record, rather than showing gradual development. Creationists could have told you about that a long time ago. [/quote]
No, before Evolutionists "invented", as you say, the Cambrian explosion, Creationists , and I DO mean Dr Morris and his Creation Science Institute, were still claiming that dinosaurs were a myth invented by scientists. Later came the idea that Natural selection somehow "had" to mean a gradual progression of species.

The Cabrian explosion was not "invented", it was discovered. Data was found that did not fit what folks had previously thought ... that there was a smooth progression from one species to another. We now know that such "explosions" are actually typical of Evolution. Species die off and then those remaining species proliferate. I won't go into the whole methodology because it would take too long. (I can, but won't unless asked).

Have you ever seen those frequently spoofed drawings showing a parade starting w/ Ramapithecus, going through Austrailopithecus, Neanderthal, and Cro-magnon (with other interlopers that change from time to time) to modern man? Every one of the marchers has been shown to be either just a man, just an ape, or just a hoax. Not one remains.

Not true, though I suppose you have been taught this is true. What IS true is that the pictures were made by an artist who got a lot of stuff incorrect. That was known even when he made the drawings, but since people had nothig better, they used them and somewhere along the line the little "detail" about their inaccuracy was missed. They are close enough for a lot of purposes, but not scientific proof of anything. What is also true is that there are many of some fossils, very few of others. The number of hominids (things that look like humans loosely) has grown, not shrunk. And, some initial thoughts/theories have been shown wrong.
A lot of those hominid-like creatures are definitely NOT ancestors of humans. Neanderthals are not. They likely coexisted with early humans, but were a seperate branch of the evolutionary tree.

Had you really been taught about Evolution, and not just Creationism, you would know this.

On both sides, there are things that are not known and have to be filled in with guesses, but the evolutionists have to do at least as much tap-dancing to explain things. For example, take the physical and behavioral adaptations necessary for flight. It makes no sense for one of them to begin developing without the whole system being in place.

Again, you grossly misunderstand and misrepresent what biologists actually say and make some pretty big assumptions. "a whole system has to be in place" is just ridiculous. A system evolves as a whole while the species within evolve. Nothing happens all at once.

We see adaptations right now, see responses of germs to antibiotics, see plants adapting to both pests and pesticides. See insects adapting to pesticides ... etc. Now, of course, I DO believe there is a maker and absolutely do believe there is a pattern, but that is belief, not science. Scientifically, no one knows why it all happened, just tha it did.

Let me dispell on other myth. When a scientist says "random" it is not usually the same as a mathematical "random". Scientists say "random" to mean there are too many factors to know or predict. So, a scientist will talk about "random" mutations, but that does not mean any other alternative is possible. It is almost always understood that there are limits an parameters to what could be... we just don't know what they are yet.

Oh, Players, this whole subject is off topic for the thread. If you want to answer it, you should do it in another thread. (\;-/)

Cute, except I had already started on a response to Martin Rowe here. I had it written when my two year old got up from his nap and hit the wrong button before I had saved it... stupidity on my part, yes. Disrespect, no.

Honestly, I keep looking for someone to show me all this real evidence that is supposed to exist supporting Creationism. So far all I get are misunderstandings and people telling me things that their experts have relayed. When I question .. its "oh, that's not my field" (never mind that it IS MINE!) and "well, you just must be wrong... I cannot tell you why, but you are". If you have anything more, bring it on!

[jonesthecurl]

Yay Player
I'm glad you could be bothered to say all that again - I considered it and was interrupted by the necessity for a long discussion with the curlson about homework and stuff. (Quick summary: what's the easiest way to stop me nagging you to do your homework?)

[daddy1gringo]

While we're talking about dispelling myths, these made me laugh.

Of course, you were never taught any of this because it would not fit with your teachers ideas and beliefs.

Not true, though I suppose you have been taught this is true.

Had you really been taught about Evolution, and not just Creationism, you would know this.

Um... what do you know about who my teachers were? I can guarantee that the teachers at my public schools and the Professors at the University of Connecticut, from which I have my degree, were not fundamentalist-fanatic creationists.

It seems that you have determined what is true based on your preconceived ideas and summarily rejected evidence that doesn't fit in with them. Hmm, that sounds familiar.

Another problem with your mythology that if I reject evolution it must be that I unquestioningly parrot religious indoctrination, is that I used to believe in theistic evolution, that God created by means of evolution. I changed my opinion based on the fossil evidence. If evolution were proven, I would go back to believing in it, and it would not trouble my faith a bit. I would have to revise my theology about the connection between physical and spiritual death, but it would not be the first , nor probably the last time I made such a change.

Really, there is so much question-begging and bad logic in your post that I'll have to come back and deal with it later. That is MY field

[HapSmo19]

Why does this matter again?

[MeDeFe]

Why does this matter again?

Because there's a proposed law that would give the Institute for Creation Research in Texas the right to grant degrees without state oversight. Which means you could have a certified MA of Biology (or physics, or whatever field) who uses the bible to verify or falsify his theses but not the scientific method.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB02800I.htm

[PLAYER57832]

Why does this matter again?

Because there's a proposed law that would give the Institute for Creation Research in Texas the right to grant degrees without state oversight. Which means you could have a certified MA of Biology (or physics, or whatever field) who uses the bible to verify or falsify his theses but not the scientific method.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB02800I.htm

and because roughlyt thirty states now require that this be taught in science classes. Because by the time this issue actually hits your local school board, the Creationists have already amassed lawyers, experts and multipl signatories.

Because having and educated population is critical to a functioning democracy.

[GabonX]

An educated population is essential to having a functioning democracy, but this particular issue has no relevance. The time could better be spent teaching more useful and less divisive topics.

[PLAYER57832]

While we're talking about dispelling myths, these made me laugh.

Of course, you were never taught any of this because it would not fit with your teachers ideas and beliefs.

Not true, though I suppose you have been taught this is true.

Had you really been taught about Evolution, and not just Creationism, you would know this.

Um... what do you know about who my teachers were?

True, I don't. But, I DO know that what you are stating as truth is not, so the results show that watever your teachers attempted to teach, you did not learn it.

I can guarantee that the teachers at my public schools and the Professors at the University of Connecticut, from which I have my degree, were not fundamentalist-fanatic creationists.

IF you majored in biology or geology, that might be relevant. A general ed class, even at the college level, often just barely brushes on these issues.

It seems that you have determined what is true based on your preconceived ideas and summarily rejected evidence that doesn't fit in with them. Hmm, that sounds familiar.

Except you missed most of what I said, about my field being biology, about my having seen fossils .. not just those Creationists try to present, but the "inconvenient" ones they ignore.

You also missed the part where I said that I have actively sought out, am still seeking out, people who claim to be versed in Creationism. NONE.. not one has come up with any real evidence OR shown a real understanding of the Evolutionary theories they say they can "disprove".

Another problem with your mythology that if I reject evolution it must be that I unquestioningly parrot religious indoctrination, is that I used to believe in theistic evolution, that God created by means of evolution. I changed my opinion based on the fossil evidence. If evolution were proven, I would go back to believing in it, and it would not trouble my faith a bit. I would have to revise my theology about the connection between physical and spiritual death, but it would not be the first , nor probably the last time I made such a change.

Fine, I'd love to see your evidence. Join me in Real U... or keep posting here.

Really, there is so much question-begging and bad logic in your post that I'll have to come back and deal with it later. That is MY field

Mine as well ... bring it on!

You see, much of science is understanding logic. I am not going to swear that every post I make is without error.. not by a long shot. Half the time I start typing, thinking I have plenty of time and then my son wakes, the fire whistle blows...etc. and I have to cut things short. But the big picture .. there is no failure in my logic... at all!

[PLAYER57832]

An educated population is essential to having a functioning democracy, but this particular issue has no relevance. The time could better be spent teaching more useful and less divisive topics.

To believe Creationism, as put forth by the Creation Institute, is to do away with almost all of physics, chemistry, biology, Geology, etc.

It IS relevant and very much a part of education. We have ignored this issue for far, far too long. If you seriously believe it is not a serious issue, at least in the US, you have not had any real exposure to it. Understand, roughly 25% of the Bush administration believed this way. It was a major reason why the US is so far behind in Global warming legislation. The impacts are vast and profound... far too many for me to simply list here.

[joecoolfrog]

There is not one single shred of scientific evidence to suggest the world is only 6-10,000 years old, young earth creationists are utterly blinkered and it is quite criminal for them to attempt to push such absurd notions on to young children

[jonesthecurl]

It's about science, and the scientific method.

Scientist: take the evidence. attempt to formulate a theroy covering the evidence. Think about what would prove or disprove the theory so far. Do experiments or otherwise seek such information. Rethink theory as necessary.

Creationist: Read accepted authority. Believe it. Look for supporting evidence. Look for a way to explain away any non-supporting evidence. Never rethink position.

[PLAYER57832]

The following is a link covering common misconceptions about Evolution. It is written for teachers specifically.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/m ... orks.shtml

The following is a link to the answers to John Wells 10 questions:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 8_2001.asp

I dislike the title, but the following is a link to a Swarthmore College website on15 answers to this Creationist nonsense. http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurri ... nsense.pdf

Definitely worth reading! (and not highly technical)

[HapSmo19]

If you seriously believe it is not a serious issue, at least in the US, you have not had any real exposure to it. Understand, roughly 25% of the Bush administration believed this way. It was a major reason why the US is so far behind in Global warming legislation.

The more you talk, the more I like him.