Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Snorri1234]

We think we came from apes, because some of them had slightly more protruding noses.

Doesn't interspecies evolution mean that the old species evolves into the new one?

No we didn't come from apes, we came from a common ancestor.
There was originally a bunch of ape-like animals sitting somewhere in a tree or something, and then some of them decided to see if the ground was a nice place to live too. They survived on the ground, and since the other apes were living in trees they could only have sex with other ground-dwellers. This lead to them evolving over time into humans.

[joecoolfrog]

So after all these posts we have this conclusion

1) There is no Scientific evidence whatsoever for creationism

2) There is a good scientific case for evolution in the minds of 99% of scientists worldwide.

3) There are flaws in the theory of evolution but the only argument for rejecting it completely is that it contradicts a literal interpretation of part of the Old Testament.

That is because Creationism isn't scientific. It is the belief that Intelligent Design created the world, no science needed.

Precisely my point,creationism is based purely on supernatural belief so why cant its advocates simply admit that fact and stop trying to belittle evolution.

[unriggable]

We think we came from apes, because some of them had slightly more protruding noses.

Doesn't interspecies evolution mean that the old species evolves into the new one?

No we didn't come from apes, we came from a common ancestor.
There was originally a bunch of ape-like animals sitting somewhere in a tree or something, and then some of them decided to see if the ground was a nice place to live too. They survived on the ground, and since the other apes were living in trees they could only have sex with other ground-dwellers. This lead to them evolving over time into humans.

This should be on sesame street. Overly simplified, accurate. Perfect.

[AlgyTaylor]

Hold on, why is it evolution that needs to be defended anyway, since the vast majority of people agree that it's correct. You defend your point of view for a change!

OK, some problems I have with creationism.

1) As Jay has quite rightly said carbon dating is accurate to 70,000 years. The bible says the earth is considerably younger than that. Explain this glaringly obvious problem.

2) Why don't you find fossils of modern day animals? I mean, according to your reasoning surely there should be fossils of animals that lived 100 years ago ...

3) WITHOUT USING YOUR BIBLE, is there any actual evidence that you can point to that shows the earth was created. And please, don't go down the "it's too complicated for me to understand so therefore god did it" route either. I don't understand how Shakespeare managed to write brilliant plays but it doesn't mean that god did it for him. Actual evidence that you do understand that proves your idiotic theory.

That should give you something to be getting on with. I'll give you some more problems if/when you manage to answer those questions for me.

Sorry to bang on about this, but how come every question that's been posed about Evolution has an answer to it ... yet none of the creationists have managed to answer a single one of these three?

And whilst you're at it. According to creationism, the first humans and the dinosaurs should be the same age +/- 7 days. So can you get me a diplodocus fossil and human fossil that are roughly the same age, going by carbon dating. Or whatever really, but since carbon dating is apparently accurate to 70,000 years and the world's only about, what, 6000 years old that shouldn't be a problem.

[Carebian Knight]

We think we came from apes, because some of them had slightly more protruding noses.

Doesn't interspecies evolution mean that the old species evolves into the new one?

No we didn't come from apes, we came from a common ancestor.
There was originally a bunch of ape-like animals sitting somewhere in a tree or something, and then some of them decided to see if the ground was a nice place to live too. They survived on the ground, and since the other apes were living in trees they could only have sex with other ground-dwellers. This lead to them evolving over time into humans.

This should be on sesame street. Overly simplified, accurate. Perfect.

I don't remember that being part of evolution.

Precisely my point,creationism is based purely on supernatural belief so why cant its advocates simply admit that fact and stop trying to belittle evolution.

You can't take something that ridicules science and says its wrong, and say that it is wrong because it has nothing to do with science. Of course it has nothing to do with science, it ridicules it. That's like Al Gore talking about how bad gas is for the atmosphere, yet having huge amounts of oil stock. You just can't say it.

[Carebian Knight]

Hold on, why is it evolution that needs to be defended anyway, since the vast majority of people agree that it's correct. You defend your point of view for a change!

OK, some problems I have with creationism.

1) As Jay has quite rightly said carbon dating is accurate to 70,000 years. The bible says the earth is considerably younger than that. Explain this glaringly obvious problem.

2) Why don't you find fossils of modern day animals? I mean, according to your reasoning surely there should be fossils of animals that lived 100 years ago ...

3) WITHOUT USING YOUR BIBLE, is there any actual evidence that you can point to that shows the earth was created. And please, don't go down the "it's too complicated for me to understand so therefore god did it" route either. I don't understand how Shakespeare managed to write brilliant plays but it doesn't mean that god did it for him. Actual evidence that you do understand that proves your idiotic theory.

That should give you something to be getting on with. I'll give you some more problems if/when you manage to answer those questions for me.

Sorry to bang on about this, but how come every question that's been posed about Evolution has an answer to it ... yet none of the creationists have managed to answer a single one of these three?

And whilst you're at it. According to creationism, the first humans and the dinosaurs should be the same age +/- 7 days. So can you get me a diplodocus fossil and human fossil that are roughly the same age, going by carbon dating. Or whatever really, but since carbon dating is apparently accurate to 70,000 years and the world's only about, what, 6000 years old that shouldn't be a problem.

1. What proves that carbon dating is correct? So we've been using it for some time now. Maybe it was computed wrong.

2. I have no idea who said that fossils form after 100 years, therefore I can't answer it.

3. I can't really prove the earth was created, but you can't prove the way you said it was formed either.

[AlgyTaylor]

1. What proves that carbon dating is correct? So we've been using it for some time now. Maybe it was computed wrong.

OK. But then for Creationism to be correct, you then not only need to show that Evolution is incorrect, but also carbon dating, geology and more than likely several other branches of science. So this then becomes a general argument against scientific method as a whole.

Do you really think that it's an argument you can win?

2. I have no idea who said that fossils form after 100 years, therefore I can't answer it.

Nobody did. When do you think that fossils form? Since according to your reasoning, we should have a near complete fossil record from whenever time began to that era.

3. I can't really prove the earth was created, but you can't prove the way you said it was formed either.

I have geology to back up my views ... you have a paperback. Hmmm.

[Iliad]

and if all animals were created at the same time I seriously doubt they had any space to move. And I doubt humans would've not seen dinosaurs

[Carebian Knight]

Archaelogy is a joke, you can't say that you know what fossils came from when. It's not possible. You think you can, but it's flawed, I'll give you about 10 hours to think about it, then I'll tell you why.

Because archaelogy is flawed, you can't guess how old a fossil is and you can't guess how old the earth is. So how do you know how old the earth is?

[unriggable]

Archaelogy is a joke, you can't say that you know what fossils came from when. It's not possible. You think you can, but it's flawed, I'll give you about 10 hours to think about it, then I'll tell you why.

Because archaelogy is flawed, you can't guess how old a fossil is and you can't guess how old the earth is. So how do you know how old the earth is?

You REALLY need to study what it is you're arguind against.

Wikipedia: Radiometric Dating. There's more than meets the eye.

[Snorri1234]

Yeah, what is so funny is that radiometric dating has actually been proven.

[joecoolfrog]

Archaelogy is a joke, you can't say that you know what fossils came from when. It's not possible. You think you can, but it's flawed, I'll give you about 10 hours to think about it, then I'll tell you why.

Because archaelogy is flawed, you can't guess how old a fossil is and you can't guess how old the earth is. So how do you know how old the earth is?

You are disagreeing not with us but with pretty much every single geologist and biologist in the entire World - so you are saying they are all wrong

[AlgyTaylor]

Aye, as I was trying to point out - an argument against evolution, in favour of creationism isn't just that. You're also arguing against pretty much every area of science that's vaguely related to biology & geology. And geography.

Whereas arguing against creationism is basically arguing against the realism of a chapter in a paperback.

Keep digging, man. Keep on digging.

[AlgyTaylor]

2. I have no idea who said that fossils form after 100 years, therefore I can't answer it.

Nobody did. When do you think that fossils form? Since according to your reasoning, we should have a near complete fossil record from whenever time began to that era.

So anyway, back to this point for a moment. According to you, we need a complete fossil record to prove evolution. So show me some proof that a fossil record is able to give a complete and accurate account of every single species. Then that argument holds.

Otherwise the missing species support evolution ... or at least detract from the defence of creationism.

[vtmarik]

Archaelogy is a joke, you can't say that you know what fossils came from when. It's not possible. You think you can, but it's flawed, I'll give you about 10 hours to think about it, then I'll tell you why.

Because archaelogy is flawed, you can't guess how old a fossil is and you can't guess how old the earth is. So how do you know how old the earth is?

You mean paleontology, right?

Scientists DO know how long it takes for sediments and other materials to become rock, so they can use the geological strata as a time scale. As in, "This fossil was found in this layer, hence it is this many years old."

Unfortunately for you, there is more to dating fossils and such than C14.

Besides, even if C14 is only useful up to 70,000 years ago, the fact that we know that completely blows away any possibility of the Young Earth theory (the idea that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, on a Tuesday). If everything had a maximum age of 6,000 years then C14 would be perfectly OK and you'd have no problem with it.

But since it is possible of showing that things are older than that, it is now "Flawed" and "Unreliable" and such. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You just don't like it because it proves the Bishop wrong.

[Frigidus]

Archaelogy is a joke, you can't say that you know what fossils came from when. It's not possible. You think you can, but it's flawed, I'll give you about 10 hours to think about it, then I'll tell you why.

Because archaelogy is flawed, you can't guess how old a fossil is and you can't guess how old the earth is. So how do you know how old the earth is?

You mean paleontology, right?

Scientists DO know how long it takes for sediments and other materials to become rock, so they can use the geological strata as a time scale. As in, "This fossil was found in this layer, hence it is this many years old."

Unfortunately for you, there is more to dating fossils and such than C14.

Besides, even if C14 is only useful up to 70,000 years ago, the fact that we know that completely blows away any possibility of the Young Earth theory (the idea that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, on a Tuesday). If everything had a maximum age of 6,000 years then C14 would be perfectly OK and you'd have no problem with it.

But since it is possible of showing that things are older than that, it is now "Flawed" and "Unreliable" and such. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You just don't like it because it proves the Bishop wrong.

It seems like whenever a debate on evolution comes up creationists have to ignore a good half of all scientific thought. So far they've questioned general principles of medicine (evolving bacteria), carbon dating, and now the whole of archaeology. Science and faith don't match up...the entire point of faith is that it can not be proven. I'm not sure why creationists try to scientifically prove anything.

[vtmarik]

It seems like whenever a debate on evolution comes up creationists have to ignore a good half of all scientific thought. So far they've questioned general principles of medicine (evolving bacteria), carbon dating, and now the whole of archaeology. Science and faith don't match up...the entire point of faith is that it can not be proven. I'm not sure why creationists try to scientifically prove anything.

Yep.

God is not an explanation for anything, it's a placeholder until the answers are found. Remember, when you were a little kid and you first heard thunder? Did your mom/dad/guardian say "It's God bowling" or something similar? Then you grew up and learned about lightning and how the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound and all about Boyle's law and such.

That's what I mean.

[AlgyTaylor]

Well, the problem that will always arise is that scientific theories* are meant to be questioned and improved, whilst religion is dogmatic and cannot be disproved in the interests of furthering that religion.


* can't stress enough that a scientific theory =/= a discussionary theory

[Carebian Knight]

Vtmarik, my statement was supposed to be a suggestion, not saying it was the truth. When I said carbon dating was wrong, I didn't mean, I don't agree with it so it's wrong, I meant, maybe someone made a mistake and no one has found it yet. Since when do I listen to the f*cking bishop, or pope. I might agree with most of the ideas of my religion, however the inner workings of that religion are so screwed up, I don't want to consider myself a catholic.

Layers of earth are not a valid source of finding the age of something. Many things have been found forced through several layers of sediment rock, meaning with some pressure, something could appear older than it is. (Just wondering) How do scientists know how long it takes for a sediment layer to pack down anyway? How do they know that the layers didn't form at different speeds? This brings me back to my statement, that to truly prove things, you would need to go back in time and observe it all.

As far as the statement by Frigidus, I agree science and religion don't match up, I think I already said that. To use science to prove religion is just wrong. However, some people refuse to believe aspects of a religion unless you disprove or prove something using scientific methods.

[Snorri1234]

However, some people refuse to believe aspects of a religion unless you disprove or prove something using scientific methods.

Well we're not sheep....

[Carebian Knight]

You don't seem to understand the concept that religion shouldn't have anything to do with science. They contradict each other everywhere, every part of religion has another description in science. No matter what religion it is. Therefore science is just out to prove everyone else wrong, whereas, I'm trying to prove my point, not say science is wrong, just prove why I believe it is wrong.

[WidowMakers]

Is anyone else mildly concerned that the instigator of this thread appears to have an official position under his name? Shopkeeper, no less.

1) So are you trying to imply that CC is using me to spread this opinion? Or do you feel that since I have an official position on the site that I no longer have the right to an opinion? What if other position holding members were to agree or disagree with me? Would we be having this discussion on me being the instigator if I agreed with evolution?

2) What does me being the shopkeeper have to do with anything? Am I trying to sell CC creation shirts on the website?

I apologize if my status as shopkeeper has somehow blinded you from making your own decisions. Please try to ignore the shopkeeper tag under my name when trying to decide for yourself which makes more sense: creation or evolution.

In light of this apparent misuse of my "power" as a moderator on the Conquer Club site, I will post this disclaimer after each post on this topic from this point forward.

WidowMakers Personal Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions of WidowMakers expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Conquer Club (the site), its administrators, moderators or members (premium or freemium) and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

[WidowMakers]

4) CC's Shopkeeper likes using irritating font settings.

I am sorry you find them irritating. The topics we are discussing cannot be answered with a simple 15 word sentence. There are many levels and issues associated with each topic. I am trying to use different sized, bold, underlined and colored text to better organize the data that is presented. The text is almost unreadable when it is just standard font. I am just using the font setting to help readability of the post.

WidowMakers Personal Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions of WidowMakers expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Conquer Club (the site), its administrators, moderators or members (premium or freemium) and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

[WidowMakers]

Hold on, why is it evolution that needs to be defended anyway, since the vast majority of people agree that it's correct. You defend your point of view for a change!

OK, some problems I have with creationism.

1) As Jay has quite rightly said carbon dating is accurate to 70,000 years. The bible says the earth is considerably younger than that. Explain this glaringly obvious problem.

2) Why don't you find fossils of modern day animals? I mean, according to your reasoning surely there should be fossils of animals that lived 100 years ago ...

3) WITHOUT USING YOUR BIBLE, is there any actual evidence that you can point to that shows the earth was created. And please, don't go down the "it's too complicated for me to understand so therefore god did it" route either. I don't understand how Shakespeare managed to write brilliant plays but it doesn't mean that god did it for him. Actual evidence that you do understand that proves your idiotic theory.

That should give you something to be getting on with. I'll give you some more problems if/when you manage to answer those questions for me.

Will one of the two creationists here please try to answer these questions ...

I am working on this so don't think I am ignoring it. Question #3 is one that requires a large answer on many different topics and issues. So please hang on while I compile my data.
Thanks
WM

WidowMakers Personal Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions of WidowMakers expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Conquer Club (the site), its administrators, moderators or members (premium or freemium) and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

[AlgyTaylor]

I am working on this so don't think I am ignoring it. Question #3 is one that requires a large answer on many different topics and issues. So please hang on while I comply my data.
Thanks
WM

WidowMakers Personal Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions of WidowMakers expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Conquer Club (the site), its administrators, moderators or members (premium or freemium) and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Thanks WidowMakers, I appreciate the effort you're putting in