EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM

[Tiassa]

It's all in how you say it, Loone

Evolution is still mostly theory and is in constant change. Some whole theories have been thrown out since the 1800's and 1900's, some even laughable, some was a total shame;

Loone, you have just described a good number of sciences. Should we distress that chemistry found much of its basis in the odd quest to change lead into gold? That Bohr was breaking a clod of dirt, and not an atom, in his hand when he developed his atomic model is grounds enough to discredit it? It seems to me that what you're decrying here is the scientific process; yes, some theories are laughable when you see the result. But read up on the properties of the aether in between worlds, from the last couple of centuries. Or the old humors of the body. Even the most superstitious sciences reflect observable reality: consider the four elements of nature.

Consider the audience you approach. These are objective minds requesting and requiring objective demonstration of assertions. If your commission in any way includes bringing these people to God--since, after all, they're all unfit sinners by your reckoning--it would seem that you have an obligation to figure out how to communicate to that audience. This concession is not unheard of in the Christian realm. Concessions to paganism compel Christians to believe that Christ was born on December 25th, and accounting for the astronomical concept of precession, that places it squarely on the Yule some 1600-2000 years ago. (Precession indicates that we "gain" a day approximately every four-hundred years, as marked by the advancing of the solstices and equinoxes toward the earlier portion of the calendar.) Thus, it seems convenient that Christ is born on the pagan Yule, and even moreso to consider that Christ's birthday has some historical troubles, even in those early days. In fact, what just cracks me up is that a celestial event did, according to astronomers, occur in the sky in such a location that it could have appeared to be over Bethlehem; unfortunately this event occurred somewhere around July 2 of that year, and did not persist into the winter. Easter? Hey, there' s a few problems with that. Roving calendars are part of what early Christians criticized of the Jews in Rome. Yet here is Easter as unfixed as it can be. So why these concessions? Because, perhaps, it was easier to work one myth into another in order to accommodate the stresses of the pagan targets and to demonstrate that the gods were one and the same? Did it work? It seems to have worked, but social science has yet to draw that conclusion because it's hard to pick social data out of the economic data of that many swords and broken bodies given to the glory of God.

The saddest thing is that if you started building an objective basis for Christian faith, by the time you got around to the existence of God, it would, as in Sufism, be a moot question.

--Tiassa

 

[Sir. Loone]

E vs C

Tiassa:

Talking about the 'theory' of 'evolution' and that it has many theories thrown out and some even make a flip flop in fossil records that at many times makes less and less since! That is things don't always run or fit together the way science would have the fossil record to run. And so many quantum leaps and bounds and missing peaces, still putting the wrong head on the wrong animal or person can be confusing peacing this colossal jigsaw puzzle, will often run into many a 'train wreak' and rearrangements to satisfy someone's theorems. Theories in the making and have an awful long way to go to be solid facts of history.

What are you listening to? Rap music?

 

[Tiassa]

Actually it's Wellwater

Just got back from seeing Wellwater Conspiracy, since you asked. Nonetheless, that changes not the fact that what you are decrying is the scientific process itself. It's better to believe, apparently, that a book tells you that it tells you everything you need to know, than to find out what's actually there.

Were you born knowing everything you know about the world now?

--Tiassa

 

[Sir. Loone]

E vs C

Tiassa:

Evolution is still and only theories and not all facts, mostly guess work. Could be many generations before it to be really found to be fact!

The Devil have deceived you! You know not all there is, but God does!

 

[Cris]

Nothing

Loone,

Evolution is still and only theories and not all facts, mostly guess work.

I will re-write highlighting the key phrases –

Evolution
is still and only theories
and not all facts
mostly guess work

You have stated ‘not all facts’. The phrase ‘not all’ can be replaced by the logical construct ‘some’. You are agreeing that ‘some’ of evolution is factual.

But you also say ‘still and only theories’. This is a direct contradiction to your ‘and not all facts’ clause. If something is ‘only theories’ then it cannot be anything else, i.e. there cannot also be some facts. These two clauses cancel each other.

But you have also stated ‘mostly guess work’. ‘Mostly guesswork’ implies ‘not all guesswork’ which as we have shown is the same as ‘some guesswork’. If not all the work has been guesswork then some must be the opposite of ‘some guesswork’, which is ‘some facts’.

But that again contradicts with your first clause of ‘only theories’, so we must also eliminate ‘mostly guesswork’. We can now re-write your sentence without the paradoxical clauses to obtain –

Evolution.

With your very confused mind you have effectively said nothing whatsoever about the subject.

Cris

 

[Cris]

End of Debate

Loone,

Could be many generations before it to be really found to be fact!

Thanks Loone. That really is the end of the debate. I’ll wait the few generations for it to be fact. Since you have admitted that it will just be a matter of time before it is fully fact then that must also mean that the creation story must be false.

Cris

 

[Caleb]

Doubtful

I am surprised by how often secular scientific "discoveries" inadvertantly agree with creationism.

For example, some of you may have seen the recent "Nightline" article on ABC, wherein an archeologist discovered that these ancient "cavemen" didn't really go around in bear skins spearing mammoths, but actually wove their own clothes! These "primitive" people turn out to be more intelligent than scientists had originally thought. I had known that all along, since they were descendants of Noah and his son's, and they were obviously smart enough (with God's help) to design this really huge boat (although it did take them 120 yrs to do it -- no automated machinery, you know )

Another example is Neanderthals. Most scientists use to consider them missing links, while Creationists have always said that they were merely a divergent race of humans. According to Scientific American, even though some scientists still see Neanderthals as seperate, a growing number of them are coming to their senses and realizing that Neanderthals were just a variant of humans, subject to genetic drift from living in an isolated group. They've even uncovered a "Human-Neanderthal hybrid" child's skeleton, that supposedly lived "thousands of years" after the traditional disappearence of Neanderthals, yet another fact that screws up their previous theories.

Take the Archeopteryx. It use to be thought that it was a transitional form. Now most scientists consider it the first "true" bird. However, more "recent" (in terms of the Geological Column) discoveries have found dinosaurs in China that that they think are more transitional. Of course one of these turned out to be a hoax in the National Geographic. Others are likely displaying (according to an evolutionist) nothing more then tendons and tissue fibers, not fethers, since they're not at all like modern feathers. But some scientists think they are the "first (ie primitive) feathers" Only problem is, the Archeopteryx (which has fully formed feathers) supposedly came millions of years before them. ?!?!? Yet the evolutionists still think the later fossils are showing the first feathers I also think that I've heard other reports of even more bird-like fossils from before Archeopteryx (let me look that one up). It would appear from the evidence, then, that the dromeasaurs evolved from birds, not the other way around!!!!! I even read about at least one scientist who's proposing that. Another scientist believes that birds and dinosaurs evolved seperately, but that tdinosaurs start to look similar to birds by "convergent evolution" even though they're not related.

These kinds of stories go on and on.

~Caleb

 

[Tiassa]

What subject?

Cris:

With your very confused mind you have effectively said nothing whatsoever about the subject.

I thought it worth sticking my nose in long enough to point out a growing, nearly slayer irony. Loone has never said much about any subject. I recall, once, in one of my Believeth threads, I finally had to ask Tony1 if he had a point relevant to the topic, whereupon he admitted that no, he didn't, and proceeded in the digression, though at that point the digression was the primary theme of the running thread. I look at Loone almost the same way. He has nothing to say that qualifies as objective, and thus finds his best expressions in the form of his To God be the Glory topic, whereby he merely regurgitates sound-bite theology without any sense of concordance or index. If you look at the God is Scientifically Real debate, you'll be hard-pressed to find any science in Loone's advocacy of God's scientific reality. This is, in fact, different from the science question relating to Creationism; for instance, Caleb and I merely have to settle the issue of "Creation Science" before we can make progress there; whether or not something can be a science if it rests wholly in undemonstrable assumptions seems to me a clear-cut issue, but there remains some finer distinction to illuminate before the point is communicated--aside from those assumptons, Caleb is working hard to assemble and move through the data. (Filters acknowledged universally.)

But such an effort is absent in Loone's post. One wonders if he ever says anything about anything. To the one hand, preaching and embarrassing yourself that way is just fine if you declare an unresolvable topic of affinity, such as the To God be the Glory thread. What can be said there, except, It's nice you believe that, Honey ... would you like a cookie?

Examining Loone's performance in various topics, it seems he is unable to emerge from the realm of purely subjective, internal theology. He is so obsessed with his theology that its goal (salvation) has, perhaps, obscured his ability to learn new things. Something about the nature of his faith declarations strikes me as ... well, creepy seems to be the word that comes to mind most often. Kind of an American Gothic on cheap MDMA, or something. The Addams Family Florists? Argh ....

But all of this comes down to one simple observation: Loone says very little about anything unless the topic is having nothing important to say. Perhaps this is a natural result of the theology he's applying. Who knows? Perhaps we should take up a relief fund for him.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Caleb]

...aside from those assumptons, Caleb is working hard to assemble and move through the data.

Um... Thanks... I think.

~Caleb

 

[Cris]

Caleb,

I agree with tiassa. While I disagree with your conclusions you are indeed debating based on, at least, perceived evidence.

Cris

 

[Sir. Loone]

No it's not

Originally posted by Cris
Loone,

Thanks Loone. That really is the end of the debate. I’ll wait the few generations for it to be fact. Since you have admitted that it will just be a matter of time before it is fully fact then that must also mean that the creation story must be false.

Cris

Cris: It is not the end of the debate, realistically, and when they think they have come to an conclusion about it, something else will be found wrong with there theories, and may come closer to the truth, that there was a Supreme Intelligence behind creation, by then if not sooner, Jesus would return and the truth will be before all to see!

Well it's not over till it's over Cris!

 

[Sir. Loone]

E vs C

Originally posted by tiassa
Cris:I thought it worth sticking my nose in long enough to point out a growing, nearly slayer irony. Loone has never said much about any subject. I recall, once, in one of my Believeth threads, I finally had to ask Tony1 if he had a point relevant to the topic, whereupon he admitted that no, he didn't, and proceeded in the digression, though at that point the digression was the primary theme of the running thread. I look at Loone almost the same way. He has nothing to say that qualifies as objective, and thus finds his best expressions in the form of his To God be the Glory topic, whereby he merely regurgitates sound-bite theology without any sense of concordance or index. If you look at the God is Scientifically Real debate, you'll be hard-pressed to find any science in Loone's advocacy of God's scientific reality. This is, in fact, different from the science question relating to Creationism; for instance, Caleb and I merely have to settle the issue of "Creation Science" before we can make progress there; whether or not something can be a science if it rests wholly in undemonstrable assumptions seems to me a clear-cut issue, but there remains some finer distinction to illuminate before the point is communicated--aside from those assumptons, Caleb is working hard to assemble and move through the data. (Filters acknowledged universally.)

But such an effort is absent in Loone's post. One wonders if he ever says anything about anything. To the one hand, preaching and embarrassing yourself that way is just fine if you declare an unresolvable topic of affinity, such as the To God be the Glory thread. What can be said there, except, It's nice you believe that, Honey ... would you like a cookie?

Examining Loone's performance in various topics, it seems he is unable to emerge from the realm of purely subjective, internal theology. He is so obsessed with his theology that its goal (salvation) has, perhaps, obscured his ability to learn new things. Something about the nature of his faith declarations strikes me as ... well, creepy seems to be the word that comes to mind most often. Kind of an American Gothic on cheap MDMA, or something. The Addams Family Florists? Argh ....

But all of this comes down to one simple observation: Loone says very little about anything unless the topic is having nothing important to say. Perhaps this is a natural result of the theology he's applying. Who knows? Perhaps we should take up a relief fund for him.

thanx, GOD
Tiassa

Tiassa, there is nothing but Satanic rhetoric about the truth, and that even some scientist really believe that the Darwinian theory is just a theory and to have faith in it, is like unto some obscure religion of humanism!
The truth is in GOD's Word, and science will be ever pondering the natural, but everything that exist does have that supernatural connection, - It's GOD the Almighty's creation!

Tiassa: "Woe to those who are wise in there own eyes, and clever in there own sight." (Isaiah 5:21) NIV

The truth shell ultimitley triumph over thy lies!
Drugs and deception kills!

 

[Cris]

No it's not - ah nuts.

Loone,

Cris: It is not the end of the debate

Aw shucks, I really thought you had agreed that proof for evolution was inevitable. I am very surprised that you have changed your mind.

… when they think they have come to an conclusion about it, something else will be found wrong with there theories…

Ah, I see, you have become a prophet now, or are you a clairvoyant? You now claim to be able to see the future, or do you just use your private line to ummm, whatsisname; sorry I’ve forgotten whom you talk about so much. Don’t worry it’ll come back to me soon.

Well it's not over till it's over Cris!

Mmm, I see you have been delving into some philosophy books. Very impressive.

Cris.

PS. Try not to forget your medication again, I think you must have forgotten today.

 

[Tiassa]

Um ... Loone?

there is nothing but Satanic rhetoric about the truth

You're making even less sense than usual.

Hang on ... hang on.

The truth is in GOD's Word

Okay. We're going to take your assertions and construct what is called a syllogism. Just so we're clear on what that is, here's the definition from http://www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster):

1 : a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion (as in "every virtue is laudable; kindness is a virtue; therefore kindness is laudable")

For your ammunition, there are three definitions listed, including subtle and crafty argument and deductive reasoning. There is nothing subtle about this particular syllogism, though, because the difficulty you've encountered making yourself clear is naked. However ... and this is what you have created by your very own arguments:

* If there is nothing but Satanic rhetoric about the truth,

AND

* If The truth is inGOD's Word,

THEN

* [color=dark red]There is nothing about GOD's Word but Satanic rhetoric.[/color]Do you even remember what you're arguing for? The contradiction will keep me smiling for days.

thanx much for the grins,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

Ugh

I really hate evolution/creation debates because each side has it so wrong and they are so set in whatever their beliefs are that they won't budge no matter what. But everyone seems to want to have their say in this so I'm not going to be left out.

The real problem I have with the majority of the proponents of evolution is that they have far more of a political agenda than a scientific one. The political agenda makes it so that the two aren't looked at for their factual merits and everyone holds such extreme stances that science and logic are pushed out of the way.

Creationist extreme stance: The earth must be X-thousand years old because the Bible says it was created in six days and everything had to come after that--everything else is explained with "God can do anything" no matter how illogical that would be.

Evolutionist extreme stance: All aspects of life have to be able to be explained through a random ordering impersonal process, no matter how complex the system or how strange or illogical the outcome actually is.

<b><i>Think people!</i></b> None of you understand your basis (creationists don't understand the Bible and Evolutionists don't understand the process of life at a mechanical level) so don't be high and mighty in your stances.

And <I>NO ONE</I> should be shoving your ideas down children's throats in public school. That is particularly to you extremist evolutionists.

 

[Tiassa]

Okay, Dan ...

Whatever you say.

None of you understand your basis (creationists don't understand the Bible and Evolutionists don't understand the process of life at a mechanical level) so don't be high and mighty in your stances.

On the one hand, Evolution is a continuing scientific investigation. To the other, the Bible is pretty much set in stone. This leads to another point of yours:

And NO ONE should be shoving your ideas down children's throats in public school. That is particularly to you extremist evolutionists.

I was wondering if you took the time to read any of the links offered by the posters in this thread. I, myself, have repeatedly offered the simplest possible explanation of the difference between evoluton and Creationism as relates to public schools. Evolution can be taught as a science. Now, I'm all happy to include Biblical Creationism in schools as part of the social studies course alongside similar myths from other cultures, including Buddhism, Native American shamanism, and so forth. Go for it. Give the Bible its equality alongside the other religions who don't mind not being preached in the schools. If this is unacceptable to Christians--as it is to some--then there's not much to be done to satisfy them. The simple explanation I've offered is in the form of a link to the National Academy of Sciences, on the occasion that this subject was undertaken. As noted by NAS, Creationism is not a science, and thus should not be taught as one. In the public schools, this is actually the issue. Creationists seem to desire that Creationism be given equal scientific credibility alongside evolution. This should not be, for Creationism is not a science for the very simple reason that its most critical foundations are untestable and undemonstrable. As soon as a Creationist shows demonstrable proof of God itself, we can start treating Creationism as a science. Scientific credibility for an untested, untestable thesis is the issue, and if you think believers in evolution are "shoving ideas down children's throats", perhaps you'd better think again.

What good are we going to do humanity by dismantling the scientific process? For this is essentially what Creationists ask: a redefinition of a word in order to legitimize a conclusion accepted a priori with no means of demonstration.

The center of the Creation/Evolution debate centers around scientific credibility. It seems many people are willing to accept Creationism in schools, but not by the terms the Creationists demand, because that would undermine the rest of scientific education.

It seems to me that Creationists ought to stop demanding that children be taught as a science the myths of one religion.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

Interested in the politics, not the science

The things I don't want being taught in schools is junk science motivated by a political cause. Plenty teachers taken in by environmentalist nuts have shoved on children false ideas about how our planet is going to die and it's all our fault. And the focus is so much on measuring acid rain or seeing how much garbage is on a beach or endangered species, that a lot of good science gets glossed over. Meanwhile you have another group wanting to teach unfounded theories that everything came from a single celled ancient creature that arose from the prebiotic soup that focuses on life being so simple it could organize itself instead of teaching all the complexities that make an organism work. Instead of looking at the fossil record objectively, stuff like the Cambrian Explosion is swept aside as something that doesn't mesh with what evolutionists want to believe. Many fossils were hidden away in the Smithsonian because they showed life coming about much more swiftly that one scientist desired so that it would fit his preconceived notion about evolution.

We should teach what we do know, and with a philosophy that considers us amazing, complex, and special organisms--not just a speck in a vast universe of other specks. I don't want alien theory SETI garbage taught (an offshoot of evolutionary theory), which is so unlikely that it might as well be impossible to find another planet that is even habitable for humans or any life whatsoever (without massive technology).

What <B><I>you</I></B> should be worried about is the fact that so much pseudoscience is taught and shown in the media, that there has been a jump in supersticious belief in America in the last ten years. I'm talking about energy crystals, ghosts, etc. that any person who had any scientific background could see are just rouses or outright false.

Don't go so much out for your beliefs that the truth escapes you--as is currently happening. Be on guard.

 

[xvenomousx]

Re: Interested in the politics, not the science

I agree with your statement that there is a lot of good science out there that gets glossed over.

Evolutionists agree that for 2 billlion years all that existed was basic anerobic bacteria, then came photosynthesising plants, only in the last 500 million years has life crawled onto land. Quite suddenly. But this is no scientific mystery, its only since then that the earth has become more geologically stable, and life has managed to stablise the ecosystem.
Evolution is not unfounded, it is very highly proven. I'd like to see anyone come up with any scientific evidence to suggest the universe was created as it is 6000 years ago. Something that points to the universe being that age not things matching references in text.

Originally posted by dan1123
The things I don't want being taught in schools is junk science motivated by a political cause. Plenty teachers taken in by environmentalist nuts have shoved on children false ideas about how our planet is going to die and it's all our fault. And the focus is so much on measuring acid rain or seeing how much garbage is on a beach or endangered species, that a lot of good science gets glossed over. Meanwhile you have another group wanting to teach unfounded theories that everything came from a single celled ancient creature that arose from the prebiotic soup that focuses on life being so simple it could organize itself instead of teaching all the complexities that make an organism work. Instead of looking at the fossil record objectively, stuff like the Cambrian Explosion is swept aside as something that doesn't mesh with what evolutionists want to believe. Many fossils were hidden away in the Smithsonian because they showed life coming about much more swiftly that one scientist desired so that it would fit his preconceived notion about evolution.

Well there are lots of anomalous fossils, just like the ones surposedly hidden away at the Smithsonian. Discoverys such as the coalaceth fish, which is almost identical to fossils many millions of years old. Which at first would seem to disprove evolution, so would the Tuatara and other such "living" fossils. But only to people who take what they read literally :}

We should teach what we do know, and with a philosophy that considers us amazing, complex, and special organisms--not just a speck in a vast universe of other specks. I don't want alien theory SETI garbage taught (an offshoot of evolutionary theory), which is so unlikely that it might as well be impossible to find another planet that is even habitable for humans or any life whatsoever (without massive technology).

Alien theory has nothing to do with evolution theory. Before you go slamming the possiblity of extraterrestrial life consider, we also used to think earth is the centre of the universe.

Amazing, complex, special organisms, compared to what? We are somewhat less complex than many organisms on earth, our bodies are certainly weak and vunerable without our technology. We are certainly not as wonderfull as we could be. Soon (In 20 years) we'll have computers more complex than our own brains.

Well we are specs in a ridiculously huge universe that is impossible for the mind to comprehend (small minds are worse off it seems). There is zero evidence that life can't exist else where in the universe, and there is nothing about the universe that suggests it either.
For example if life COULDN'T exist on its own without the hand of some almighty god, then life wouldn't work without some magical unknown factor. Which has never been discovered.

What <B><I>you</I></B> should be worried about is the fact that so much pseudoscience is taught and shown in the media, that there has been a jump in supersticious belief in America in the last ten years. I'm talking about energy crystals, ghosts, etc. that any person who had any scientific background could see are just rouses or outright false.

Don't go so much out for your beliefs that the truth escapes you--as is currently happening. Be on guard.

Yes there has been a jump in superstitious crap in america the last years, and some states aren't allowed to teach evolution in schools. I'd consider Creation is psuedoscience. They actually teach creation theory as a scientific theory in some school, which is perversion of science and what it stands for.
America is the only country this happens in, the only country to have any legislation relating to the CENSORING of education in schools.
I'm sorry, I don't see energy crystals and ghosts being any different than crosses and the great flood.

 

[xvenomousx]

Re: Ugh

Originally posted by dan1123

And <I>NO ONE</I> should be shoving your ideas down children's throats in public school. That is particularly to you extremist evolutionists.

This disturbs me. You've labeled valid scientific theory as a belief, and implied that evolutionists treat what they know as a belief. Yes there are extremist evolutionists, but they are only provoked by extremist creationists. Mostly normal people of learning who when provoked in chatrooms have a few laughs debunking creationist zealots, then carry on with their lives.
Should we also not shove Physics and Algebra down children's throats in public school?
At no time, in any science class anywhere are children forced or coerced to believe evolution, at no time are they scaremongered with threats of going to hell after they die. Instead they are told its a theory, as all things are in science, as science is not about shoving ideas down peoples throats like religion is.

 

[dan1123]

Yes there are extremist evolutionists, but they are only provoked by extremist creationists.

Watch me laugh: HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Darwin <i><b>invented</b></i> evolution out of his hatred for Christianity. And the <i>philosophy</i> of evolution (which is what I've been talking about from the beginning) has been used to justify and promote slavery and social injustice throughout the world. It takes away from the way people value life by assuming it is simpler than it actually is (Darwin believed cells were little bags of water) and assuming life is just some sort of cosmic accident.

Evolution is not unfounded, it is very highly proven. I'd like to see anyone come up with any scientific evidence to suggest the universe was created as it is 6000 years ago. Something that points to the universe being that age not things matching references in text.

You know, this is what I railed against creationists for in my first post here, and I'm pretty suprised no creationist has argued with me about it. I don't care about the science--and it is a theory or we would learn about the mechanisms of evolution, and what limits there are to its process. To keep increasing a theory when the evidence makes it more and more improbable (through the study of biochemistry) is dishonest. There eventually needs to become a realization that instead of placing more and more wild ideas into a theory (punctuated equilibrium and panspermia anyone?), that something new has to be thought up.

Timeframes themselves are dumb to begin with. Relativity makes it impossible to reconcile timeframes without the earth existing. So a timeframe created before the earth will not mesh with a timeframe using the earth as its reference. What is most valuable about the Bible, is that the <i>order</i> is the same as cosmology, paleontology, and archeology have dsicovered. Nothing else comes close. Even scientists themselves before Hubble were real sticks in the mud about the universe always existing.