Poll: Evolution and the other side

[mesoforte]

*snip*

Okay.

When you can explain the entire mechanism of creation, ie how a being is capable and the exact process that are used to create something with no transfer of energy, or anything observable, we'll talk.

Also, it would be helpful in this conversation of how if you were able to bring up a definition of the 'creator' that made any sense and wasn't inherently meaningless through the use of limitless terms.

We also need to address what precisely you're assuming this creator is, its inherent properties, what it means to say that it exists, how it can exist, and a lot of other things before we can talk creationism in a serious manner.

And of course, observable evidence is the premium for scientific study, so anything you have of that after you identify precisely what this 'creator' is and its nature, would be helpful. However that is only after we've made sense of what it is you are proposing.

 

[Blunderboy]

No because there isn't any.

Scientific creationism is an oxymoron.

This, and the similar posts pretty much sums up my feelings.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I checked yes, primarily for the answer of "I checked and researched, but found nothing scientific."

Also, anything that tells me to preclude the "evidence" with an non-physical/empirical and untestable concept such as a deity, and usually a very specific interpretation of such deity and it's wishes/desires before it even begins to argue it's "evidence" that somehow refutes that in which is completely physical/empirical and testable that only asks me to make a conclusion based upon such evidence I can actually observe and research myself out in the field is hardly ever going to win me over in a scientific debate. The Bible or any other religious text is not a science book, does not contain accurate scientific information in the majority of their creation stories, and will never be considered scientific outside of Creationist/Intelligent Design proponents. That much is fact.

You can be a theist and accept Evolution, you can be an atheist and accept Evolution, but you can only be a theist (and a certain subsect of such) to accept Creationism/Intelligent Design (same thing, different coat).

 

[lionsprey]

There is no scientific evidence for creation, so there's nothing to study.

what he said. all the "evidence" for creationism is mostly philosophy or pointing out faults in other theorys

 

[Astoria]

I really don't get why there is a creationism vs evolution debate. Evolution is as close to being a fact as you can get and it doesn't disprove the existence of god like some people seem to think it does.

 

[AlexNora]

interesting but please have a yes or know answer to your post

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

this is the reason I don't believe evolution i studied it enough to realize its very unstable at best but creation is no better

Would you mind elaborating slightly on what you think is "unstable" about the theory of evolution? I'm no expert but I may be able to clarify some things.

if you'd like to discuss any any know evidence for evolution with me send me a pm i don't want any fighting here.

(ill send you a pm soon to talk about some of the things i find highly "unscientific" but right now i just want to watch my topic you understand right?)

Sure, take your time. I probably won't send you anything because there's just too much evidence of evolution for me to pm you about, and most of it is quite easy to find if you google it. Feel free to pm me your qualms with the theory and if I can I'll try and explain it as best I can.

xD just take it one topic at a time if you feel like sending me something I'm not that fast at researching anyway

 

[Sight Unseen]

Yeah, I've found out one thing.

Neither creation nor lack of creation is physically possible, you'll just have to wait and see.

Seriously, the answer is that there is no answer, you can stop debating.

I partly agree with you. While I'm not so bold as to say "I know that the universe was not created, and that evolution is not guided by some creator" I am quite certain that evolution is valid, and I am even more certain that creation according to the christian religion is impossible, as that book has so many holes and contradictions it is impossible to take seriously.

I don't know though whether there was some other kind of creator or not. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[Lord Kloo]

As far as I'm concerned anything could be possible with all this evolution vs. creationism.. it could the creator's plan for us to have evolved from monkeys (or is it apes?) into humans or all the evidence could have been planted there so we don't figure out that we just came into existence by the will of a singular being thereby preventing our minds from frying..

Seriously who knows what really goes on and what has happened.. science can prove stuff exists but it can't tell you who put it there or why it is there

(metaphorically speaking of course, science can definatly tell you who put your taxes in the post.. but you know what I mean..)

Science is right from the mindset and perception of humans for the time being.. until something proves it wrong, and even then science will change.. there's nothing wrong with science suggesting that a big white guy with a beard in robes made the earth in 7 days if it can prove it.. until then I think we should just stop having these threads.. my brain now hurts

 

[Penguin_Factory]

I spent quite a while looking at the "evidence" for creationism, from the creationist side. I read blogs, websites and watched videos made by Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute. None of it was convincing.

Also, if you're getting your information from Kent Hovind you're being lied to. The man is a fraud who peddles discredited hypotheses and urban legends as truth. Send me a PM with an example of any of his claims against evolution and I'll prove it to you.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Sadly, I have. There just wasn't much science to speak off. Actually, there wasn't any, just a whole lot of bullshit. That Dr Dino crap...

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

I really don't get why there is a creationism vs evolution debate. Evolution is as close to being a fact as you can get and it doesn't disprove the existence of god like some people seem to think it does.

It just doesn't support God and religious beliefs. So in their eyes, it's wrong until they can find some way to impregnate their religious explanations into science. Why? Because it unintentionally threatens their religion.

Sadly, I have. There just wasn't much science to speak off. Actually, there wasn't any, just a whole lot of bullshit. That Dr Dino crap...

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

Wait wtf, which side are you on? lol

 

[Caverat]

No, it's like studying the scientific proof of the existence of the One Ring.

I mean, surely it must be true, there's a book about it. Even a movie now!

 

[Sight Unseen]

No, it's like studying the scientific proof of the existence of the One Ring.

I mean, surely it must be true, there's a book about it. Even a movie now!

Three of each, actually!

4 books and 5 movies if you count the hobbit coming soon.

 

[AlexNora]

I spent quite a while looking at the "evidence" for creationism, from the creationist side. I read blogs, websites and watched videos made by Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute. None of it was convincing.

Also, if you're getting your information from Kent Hovind you're being lied to. The man is a fraud who peddles discredited hypotheses and urban legends as truth. Send me a PM with an example of any of his claims against evolution and I'll prove it to you.

id much prefer you tell in a PM me about stuff these people don't cover its hard to find truth amongst all the noise.

 

[Rednog]

There really is not debate within the scientific community of creationism vs evolution, so no I haven't really bothered to look at any of the creationist claims. Why you might ask? Because I put no stock in people who are, in my honest opinion, making shit up. I had a neighbor who would come to me over other day and be like so you're a science major eh? Do you know carbon dating is wrong, tons of fossil evidence is missing etc, etc. And I was like where are you getting this info? Oh from a bunch of christian books....yea I'll look at any peer reviewed works but none of this. Don't have any? I'm going to close my door now.

 

[Astoria]

I really don't get why there is a creationism vs evolution debate. Evolution is as close to being a fact as you can get and it doesn't disprove the existence of god like some people seem to think it does.

It just doesn't support God and religious beliefs. So in their eyes, it's wrong until they can find some way to impregnate their religious explanations into science. Why? Because it unintentionally threatens their religion

It doesn't really though if you think about it. It only destroys the theory of creationism. Evolution says that things evolved from a single cell organism right? Well where did that cell come from? I may be wrong but I don't think science has the answer to that. It's kinda stupid that they insist on trying to prove evolution wrong rather than take consolation in the fact that it doesn't answer everything.

 

[Blunderboy]

A thought occurs to me.
Surely the very fact that we have evidence that animals and indeed people have changed over the millennia is proof against creationism.
Assuming that a deity exists to fulfill the role of creator, aren't most such deities considered to be infallible?
It seems unlikely to me that such an all powerful, omnipotent and omnipresent figure would have to pop back after 40,000 years to attach some opposable thumbs or upgrade the neck to a longer one, because it had forgotten to do it right at the start.
Could just be me though.

 

[Itsthatguy]

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

Wait wtf, which side are you on? lol

He is getting annoyed at the incorrect statement that we evolved from modern day monkeys/apes,instead of both of us having common ancestry which is correct.

At least, that is what i am assuming he is getting annoyed about.

It doesn't really though if you think about it. It only destroys the theory of creationism. Evolution says that things evolved from a single cell organism right? Well where did that cell come from? I may be wrong but I don't think science has the answer to that. It's kinda stupid that they insist on trying to prove evolution wrong rather than take consolation in the fact that it doesn't answer everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#.22Primordial_soup.22_theory

Wikipedia is your friend. Use it

OT: Heard a few arguments for creationalism. All of them have been nonsensical either immediately or on close examination. I could do some research, but honestly it is too painful to search throught 100 pages of religious tripe to find one good argument.

Someone can feel free to post one here though. I am genuinely interested in how you can support creationalism in a legitimate scientific or philosophical way.

 

[chronicfc]

(no DO NOT debate the video here that's not the point the pole at the top is)

I-i-i... Sorry, I just can't debate any one who follows blind faith... or misspells "poll"

There is no researching to be done on creationism because it ISN'T a scientific theory, it just isn't. It's just a myth, someone thousands of years ago going "Hmm... I don't know how we came in to being... perhaps some "creator" magically made everything thousands of years ago... yeah, that sounds about right", and so he accepted this and wrote it down, and told stories, and this became accepted as the notion of a "God" figure was handy at keeping people in line. Whereas evolution was a theory that Darwin proposed after years of study and research, he noticed something and developed a theory around that, but you believe something and try to justify it.

 

[mesoforte]

Sadly, I have. There just wasn't much science to speak off. Actually, there wasn't any, just a whole lot of bullshit. That Dr Dino crap...

*snip*

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

Wait wtf, which side are you on? lol

The first part refers to creation 'science' stuff.

The second part refers to the misconception that we came from monkeys or apes.

Common ancestor =/= came from

Moreover, we are still within the ape family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape