Poll: Evolution and the other side

[Evidencebased]

Wow, your post is composed of 100% Creationist Propaganda. Would you like a Golden Crocoduck?

I really, really, really, seriously hope, FOR YOUR SAKE, that you are trolling. If not, then Science and Reason help you.

I can't even begin to facepalm with this post.

Oh wow. Oh wow. Bahaha. Come on now, seriously. You can't surely be serious. Yeah, you must be a troll. This post can't be legit.

Oh man you almost got me there, phew. For a moment I thought you were serious.

evilneko: if you think you can prove me wrong, please don't let me stop you.

And lotr rocks 0: I'm not trolling. That is what I believe. But I have often been banned from places for stating my belief.

I'll say again, if you can prove me wrong on anything. I'll shut up.

Aw, that's adorable. Luckily for you, doctors and researchers have a much better grasp of science than you do, and we're even willing to treat and cure people who don't believe in the very basic foundations of our work. If you get sick, the Theory of Evolution is gonna be why we are able to help you.

Wow, this is a first. I'm treated like I have a disease. Not surprised, but still, a first.

Lol, dude, calm down; haven't you ever been ill? Taken antibiotics? The only reason modern medicine exists is because we understand the Theory of Evolution. (I wasn't calling you crazy I was pointing out that you have likely seen a doctor at least once in your life. And that doctor was able to help you thanks to, in part, the Theory of Evolution.)

 

[FilipJPhry]

Oy, try putting threads like this in the Religion and Politics forums please!

 

[DracoSuave]

As a Creationist I do believe in scientific evidence for creation, because scientific evidence for creation is found in observational science.

Finally, a creationist willing to bring in actual hard science.

Evolution is based on the study of things we can't study, like "billions of years ago" and the likes (well, not entirely).

But we HAVE things that are billions of years old, and can be proven to be such. We can use observational evidence from things that exist today that indicate what happened billions of years ago.

Not to mention, the very notion that any arbitrary number of years ago cannot be observed is absurd. We can observe things that existed millions of years ago by looking at the Andromeda Galaxy. We've studied the thing, and it can only be millions of light years away. Because of that distance, the light from it that is hitting our planet IS millions of years old.

Sorry, bud. This notion that the past is unobsurvable is proven false. Abandon it.

When people say "there is no evidence for creationism, it's just a load of horse shit" I feel sorry for them because they are obviously looking at the wrong kind of science to study creationism.

Okay....

For example, the proteins that form life are made up of amino acids. To sum up an argument for creationism, amino acids cannot survive in water (fact)

Never mind the fact that by saying this statement you have no idea what an ACID is...

Ahem.

Hydrophiliac Amino Acid Chains.

Point disproven. Continuing on...

, therefore life as we know it could not have formed billions of years ago in water (and of course there is the theory of RNA that was invented to counter this argument).

RNA has been discovered to exist. It's not a theory, any more than 'water is wet' is a theory.

But do you see where I am coming from, Joe Evolutionist? Creationism isn't formed on the studies of "billions of years ago."

Neither is evolution.

It's formed on observational science.

Oh, let me get back to you on this little tidbit.

Another example is that evolution relies on mutations to make it work, but we have only ever found bad mutations in creatures that are harmful to life, not helpful mutations leading to survival of the species.

Wrong.

In Lake Mono, in eastern colorado, there is such an extreme toxicity level that most life cannot survive. However, different species have adapted to the toxicity, through mutation, allowing it to survive in the highly toxic water.

One particular little guy, a bacteria strain, can not only survive in the water, but in pools of evaporated water that contain so much arsenic that the bacteria has evolved to replace arsenic with carbon... and still live. This is unprecidented, as in the vast majority of species in the world, arsenic is always deadly.

Mutations helping the creature survive.

A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons?

Engis, Belgium was where the first skull was discovered, back in 1829. Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar. Over 400 Neanderthal skeletons or partial skeletons have been found since.

Did you even TRY to research any of this?

We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet.

Just over 400 illegitimate ones?

We came close with Lucy, only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago...

One down. You still have 400 more specimens to debunk to make your point.

50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear.

Actually, they kinda do. There's a reason why millions of animals can die each year and yet the entire ground isn't covered in the bones of the dead.

It's called 'Decomposition'.

I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...

I know, right, it's almost like hundreds of species that lived for millions of years would have more specimens than one single species that only lived for a few thousand years.

It's almost like there were more dinosaurs.

I know that this isn't a discussion thread so if anyone wants to chat just inbox me. Plus I'll pick and choose who to reply to based on how short the message is. 300 points for me to reply to isn't much fun, so keep it to your five most important points please.

Sorry. You presented more than five points, all of which were easily debunkable with a wikipedia search.


But let's go back to your insistance on 'observational science.'

In order to advance creationism, you need an observation. This is your own goalpost, and you need to answer it.

Has any creation scientist observed a god creating life?

 

[Sprinal]

I said yes as I did look into it once.

After about 4 hours on the internet and in libraries finding all evidence is either extremely vague (to a point of being meaningless) or easily explainable using the concepts of Physics and Chemistry (as well as Bio) I gave up.

Then I concluded that evolution was more accurate and then dismissed the debate...again...

 

[zehydra]

I have, back in high school. (Actually ID, not creationism specifically. The two are compatible, but not the same thing. For instance, there are atheist/secular ID scientists)

I have come to accept Evolution a long time ago (it makes sense).

It's not possible for an atheist to be an ID scientist unless he doesn't believe the lies he's making and only doing it for money. Atheism, by definition, is the lack of a belief in a God. Intelligent design, by definition, is the idea that a God-like creator made the universe (in a SHOCKINGLY similar way to Biblical creation, imagine the odds...) and all life in the universe. By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to believe in intelligent design, because then he would be a theist...

it doesn't have to be god-like

 

[monfang]

Hmm. I don't believe I can win this. By win, I mean convince you to change your mind. It might be for the best though. Ah well.

Lets shift gears. I can't convince you that Evolution is full of holes, so I will convince you that Creationism isn't. We'll start with treating Creationism like a science. First off, you can't. It isn't a scientific theory. It's a theory based on the same train of thought that Sherlock Holmes and detectives use. By using the facts that we see before us, we look for the truth. Often times, the wildest and craziest theories are often the truth.

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.."

Ok, lets start with the impossible. Based on experiments that are still being advertised in school science books, Miller and Urey experiment, conditions in pre-life Earth made the amino acids that formed life. HOWEVER, the facts recorded show that it is impossible. First off, life requires 20 amino acids to survive. The Experiment only formed 15 at most. Also, there is always a third of those acids are left handed. Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

"... whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..."

I'll wait for a response before going on. Maybe I'll make a topic just for this.

 

[Knight Templar]

snip

So you are not going to respond to any of the points held against you? Just jump ship?

 

[DracoSuave]

Are you really that blind? Are you really that manipulated? Has the social-media really whipped you this much that you can't step outside of your own little cacoon of understanding for a few minutes?

I -did- watch the video. That's how I can point out specific flaws in his rebuttals that have nothing to do with evolution, but other fields of science he gets absolutely WRONG.

No, you, like almost all evolutionists I've ever encountered, are not interested in civil discourse. You're just interested in being right.

But I'm going to stop wasting my time. I could go on and on - I tried to be fair, I tried to be understanding, I tried to be enlightening, but there's always something with you people. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what evidence i present. I once wrote a person a 3 page, single spaced response with detailed sources, and his response was, "I'm sorry, I'm not going to take the time to read what's so obviously a load of crap."

I did take the time, and it IS a load of crap. What do you say to that?

No, you just want Creationism to be wrong, so you won't even allow yourself to be challenged, dismissing anything thats contrary to what you believe out of hand.

I FINALLY have something that I can explain things far better than me in certain areas. And what does someone say? "Pft, I'm not watching that, you said it sucks!"

Like I said, I -did- watch it, and the guy doesn't understand high school chemistry. He's speaking from an agenda, not from any basis in anything resembling science.

I said that it's like propaganda

It is propaganda

- that doesn't mean it's less credible, it's just the style and way the information is presented; and I said they use outdated information on Evolution - BUT ONLY SOME.

It's the fact that he has basic chemical principles like 'electrolysis' wrong, and that he completely ignores how the scientific method works, and misrepresents arguments made in experiments he quotes that discredit him.

We're calling him a charlatan because he is, in point of fact, a charlatan. He is a fraud. He is blatantly lying to make a point.

And of that some, it's almost irrelevant. The point is that anyone with a bachelor's degree in biology should be able to point out the flaws, but the video isn't made for people with degrees in biology,

Read: People who don't understand he's outright lying to them.

it's made for the average person to understand. Many of the information presented about evolution are what main-stream media thinks of evolution in the first place. If anything, it's guilty of talking about and responding to the very ideas evolutionists themselves present to the ignorant masses!

Which makes it useless in principle as a debunking of evolution. That's the entire central part that makes it charlatanism.

See, he's working a crowd with no knowledge of evolution, and trying to debunk evolution to them, by PURPOSEFULLY misrepresenting the argument, using common misconceptions about evolution, rather than the actual science, or the actual theory itself. On. Purpose.

That's academic fraud. If he were a student in some schools, he'd get expelled for that.

Then you expect a simple google search to solve your problems... are you really that dense?

No, we expect a better case to be made.

No... no... I'm done. I go on these forums to try and promote a civil discussion; an open platform to present ideas I've heard.

When one presents academic fraud as a scientific debate, one is going to get called on it. That's part of why we have free speech.

I'm not looking to write a term paper on Creationism, I'm not looking to prove you all wrong (that's not how science works in the first place...),

Actually, proving stuff wrong is exactly how science works.

I'm only looking to say, "The idea that Creationism has no evidence outside of the Bible is false."

And if that statement is false, present evidence. Show any of the body of scientific research over the thousands of years that mankind has believed in a creator, to forward the point. Seriously, that's all anyone is asking.

Not one creationist has stepped forward with research. Rhetoric, yes. Self-vicitmization, sure. In your case, outright academic fraud. But not, one, single, solitary, experiment.

In a scientific debate, without the experiment, you have no position.

And rather than looking at any source I may come up with, you just dismiss it out of hand.

Not at all. I determined he was full of shit by the outright incorrect nonsense he was spouting.

You are all sad individuals and blatant hypocrites.

By requiring research?

EDIT: Please don't respond. I don't really feel like clicking through my email box to just get rid of notifications I won't read or getting my hopes up that it's from a forum where the discuss is more productive than talking to a brick wall.

Then don't keep posting?

 

[monfang]

snip

So you are not going to respond to any of the points held against you? Just jump ship?

I could say the same of you. But I did my best, I can't convince you of anything. Turning away from an argument after seeing that it is futile is not jumping ship, it is just common sense.

Now, respond to my point.

 

[DracoSuave]

Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

Regarding this concept, called chirality.

L-type amino acids (what you call right-handed, but actually means "left-handed") are prevalent in complex life forms.

However, most bacteria are D-type, (what you call left-handed, but actually means "right-handed")

Life exists on this planet with amino acids of both chiralities.

Ergo your claim is patently false. Not only is your claim on chirality completely false, D-type amino acids are not, in fact, toxic.

To prove this, you need only perform an experiment wherein you eat a substance containing both types of amino acids.

I'm going to go eat a bowl of yogurt now.

Continue.

 

[Knight Templar]

]I could say the same of you.

Did I suddenly change tactics and abandon a previous discussion?
No, you did so when you should have addressed my post.

But I did my best, I can't convince you of anything. Turning away from an argument after seeing that it is futile is not jumping ship, it is just common sense.

Correction: You are unable to put forth an argument. What you have put up, others have knocked down. Your own support is in fact opposed to you, that is why you can't convince anybody, you can't even stay consistent.

Now, respond to my point.

The Miller-Urey experiment while a related bit of history isn't about evolution. It has zero bearing on this discussion. It won't matter to evolution if god made the spark of life or not.


Now, respond to the post you ignored.

 

[cdstephens]

I used to be a creationist, now I'm a theistic evolutionist. Still Christian, just not science hating nor irrational.

 

[Evidencebased]

Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

Regarding this concept, called chirality.

L-type amino acids (what you call right-handed, but actually means "left-handed") are prevalent in complex life forms.

However, most bacteria are D-type, (what you call left-handed, but actually means "right-handed")

Life exists on this planet with amino acids of both chiralities.

Ergo your claim is patently false. Not only is your claim on chirality completely false, D-type amino acids are not, in fact, toxic.

To prove this, you need only perform an experiment wherein you eat a substance containing both types of amino acids.

I'm going to go eat a bowl of yogurt now.

Continue.

No, DracoSuave, don't do it! Don't you realize that (like amino acids) bacteria are totally fatal (I'm pretty sure this is true; our digestive tracts are totally free of all bacteria, right)?? If you eat that deadly yogurt, who will explain to them how chirality and hydrophilicity work while I giggle???

 

[poundingmetal74]

If there is anyone on this forum who legitimately believes in creationism, you really ought to research the bergess shale geological formation and the fact that boa constrictors are still born with legs/arms from time-to-time. Evolution is fact and every piece of new evidence scientists uncover further supports it.

I've always found that the term intelligent design simply makes god look bad. I would think an entity with a hands-on approach who tweaks every aspect of our existence would have created humans without cancer. And a planet without pollution. And ensuring plentiful food for every one of his creations.

If you seriously believe in creationism and aren't the least bit skeptical, you really ought to start asking more questions.

 

[Evidencebased]

snip

Has any creation scientist observed a god creating life?

Hell yes; women have babies all the time!

/radical feminist

 

[DracoSuave]

No, DracoSuave, don't do it! Don't you realize that (like amino acids) bacteria are totally fatal (I'm pretty sure this is true; our digestive tracts are totally free of all bacteria, right)?? If you eat that deadly yogurt, who will explain to them how chirality and hydrophilicity work while I giggle???

No dude.

I am totally serious.

See, this is how science works.

Hypothesis: D-type amino acids are poisonous to life, therefore feeding a substance full of D-type amino acids to something living will have a detrimental effect on that life form.

Experiment: Eat a tub of mocha-flavored yogurt.

I'll let you know the results later, but on first bite? All signs point to delicious.

Edit: 500g worth of yogurt, if you're curious. Not one of those tiny cups. A big tub of it. I'm backing my assertation up with science!

 

[kidd25]

well simple, God is a thing that is self-sustain and is all-powerful, thus creating the universe he shaped the world, and gave a sense of time to it as well. I don't really know how old the world is, but God claims to do all that is good. to put it in a human way of doing things, like an artist creating a wonderful, incredible painting that can never be duplicated in just a few days.

That still doesn't answer how someone can believe the earth is 6000 years old when we have proof of the contrary.

The keyword in the phrase 'Theory of Evolution' would be theory.
I just saved you a lot of time.

'Logic' is my Captcha. That's interesting.

most people, believe this theory as a fact, so Also if logic is your captcha then i am, sure you are ready to explain and define many things as you post in this thread ^_^

You have to keep in mind that a scientific theory isn't like every other theory. A scientific theory is backed up by substantial data and research, something creationism is not, the only "proof" there is of creationism is a book that's roughly 1700 years old.

well like i said, some creationist believe the world is older than that, also the thing is that people believe that book because it was their history (jewish) then later on jesus came and allowed anyone to go to heaven, etc, etc. ...wait i don't think i explain that well. the jewish people believed the book cause it was their history, people who followed jesus had to believe in the old testament as well for jesus cam to fulfill it. So i hope that answered your question, and asking, but why will lead to something off topic.