Poll: Evolution and the other side

Astoria

New member
Oct 25, 2010
1,887
0
0
Samurai Silhouette said:
Astoria said:
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

New member
Apr 26, 2011
2,224
0
0
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

New member
Jan 22, 2011
69
0
0
Samurai Silhouette said:
Astoria said:
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.

Astoria said:
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

New member
Jun 1, 2011
328
0
0
AlexNora said:
(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

New member
Jan 5, 2010
123
0
0
Samurai Silhouette said:
Cowabungaa said:
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
 

AlexNora

New member
Mar 7, 2011
207
0
0
chronicfc said:
AlexNora said:
(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.
its not a debate anyway xD but curse my bad spelling!

I'm just gathering information
 

Samurai Silhouette

New member
Nov 16, 2009
491
0
0
Astoria said:
theory of creationism.
This stopped me in my tracks. Is creationism really a theory? You can't have a theory without evidence, facts, and research. Hearsay doesn't count as evidence. Fossils count as evidence.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
AlexNora said:
Penguin_Factory said:
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 me about stuff these people don't cover its hard to find truth amongst all the noise.
If you truly are interested in learning this stuff, I'd highly recommend you buy a textbook or take an evolutionary biology course at a university or college, or even a decent highschool biology class. There really is too much information to convey in forum posts and pms, and a professor/textbook are much more prepared to deliver the information in a way that is logical and easiest to follow.

But basically, take any argument made by a creationist, and believe the opposite and you'll get along fine enough. Let me give you one quick example: one of creationists most common arguments is that of "irreducible complexity". They claim that certain body parts ( the eye most notably) are too complicated to have arisen by chance, and that if you removed even one part of the eye it loses all of its functionality. They therefore claim that it is impossible for these structures to have evolved, because all of the pieces would have had to come together at the same time.

Now, the truth is that every irreducibly complex system proposed by creationists have been shown to be reducible, and there are actually species still around today that exist as the steps between evolutionary changes. I'll just put this video here, it is very interesting and I highly suggest that you watch it:

Success!! Thanks.
 

Blood Countess

New member
Oct 22, 2010
221
0
0
that is the problem with this so called debate, it's always with the judeo christian god so the debate is automatically flawed with that premise
 

Astoria

New member
Oct 25, 2010
1,887
0
0
Samurai Silhouette said:
Astoria said:
theory of creationism.
This stopped me in my tracks. Is creationism really a theory? You can't have a theory without evidence, facts, and research. Hearsay doesn't count as evidence. Fossils count as evidence.
Well technically it is a theory but it's a terrible one. It's more a philosophical theory than a scientific one because it can't be proved or disproved.
 

Keith Keiser

New member
Oct 17, 2009
12
0
0
I think you might want to look up a little about Kent Hovind before you suggest his videos to anyone else. I've seen his claims debunked like a million times already so I guess you could say I've looked into it.
Also don't just look at debates or videos to make up your mind about evolution or creation. It's best to read read a couple scientific papers on the topic.
 

AlexNora

New member
Mar 7, 2011
207
0
0
lotr rocks 0 said:
AlexNora said:
Penguin_Factory said:
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 me about stuff these people don't cover its hard to find truth amongst all the noise.
If you truly are interested in learning this stuff, I'd highly recommend you buy a textbook or take an evolutionary biology course at a university or college, or even a decent highschool biology class. There really is too much information to convey in forum posts and pms, and a professor/textbook are much more prepared to deliver the information in a way that is logical and easiest to follow.

But basically, take any argument made by a creationist, and believe the opposite and you'll get along fine enough. Let me give you one quick example: one of creationists most common arguments is that of "irreducible complexity". They claim that certain body parts ( the eye most notably) are too complicated to have arisen by chance, and that if you removed even one part of the eye it loses all of its functionality. They therefore claim that it is impossible for these structures to have evolved, because all of the pieces would have had to come together at the same time.

Now, the truth is that every irreducibly complex system proposed by creationists have been shown to be reducible, and there are actually species still around today that exist as the steps between evolutionary changes. I'll just put this video here, it is very interesting and I highly suggest that you watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhDWCujcFEY (anyone know how to embed?)
that's just it i'm terrible with studying iv always disliked school i'm just a crazy artist that giving you someone to talk to if your bored really really bored....

i haven't told anyone what i believe because that's not why i made the topic (i'm also not really expecting any pm's i will be sending some out though to side step any arguing here)
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
To which I would ask, have you ever looked at the other side of people believing in Santa Clause???

If the other side is so insane and impossible from one side, there really isn't any point in looking.

And yes, I have. It made my brain hurt.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
No. This might come from the fact that I don't consider creationism a serious theory.
The premise is inherently unscientific, and I've seen pictures from the intelligent design museum and... sigh.

I might not have consciously researched it; but I've had the concept explained to me in various debates.
And the whole thing with the proponents trying to use logic and reason to explain what supposedly is an inherently illogical being...
 

AlexNora

New member
Mar 7, 2011
207
0
0
Keith Keiser said:
I think you might want to look up a little about Kent Hovind before you suggest his videos to anyone else. I've seen his claims debunked like a million times already so I guess you could say I've looked into it.
Also don't just look at debates or videos to make up your mind about evolution or creation. It's best to read read a couple scientific papers on the topic.

i think my disclaimer was pretty clear don't believe him without scrutiny

i take this same stance with evolution as well if you would like to discuss something pm me.
 

shadowsoul222

New member
Jun 6, 2010
98
0
0
Blunderboy said:
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.
except that's not what's happening? correct me if I'm wrong but evolution isn't about "upgrading" to put it that way, it's more of changing in order to fill a niche in which you succeed better and can therefor survive without the competition? I could very well be wrong I haven't had many biology classes.

OT: There are two main problems with this argument:
1) There is no way to know if God was the one who set evolution in motion or if it just happened naturally, there just isn't any way to know.
2) As alot of people seem to not realize is that as an all-powerful, all-knowing being He could just have easily created the world to appear older than it actually was. For example, yes there might be DNA proof that one species was the ancestor of another, but how do we know that both weren't created to have the similar DNA, or just the fact that the two species are so similar they are bound to have similar DNA anyways?
These are just my thoughts and speculations, I'm no expert so don't quote me on anything.
 

Lyri

New member
Dec 8, 2008
2,660
0
0
AlexNora said:
my friendly evolutionist would you mind telling me if you have ever once seriously looked at the other side. I'm talking about at least a week or two of long research into creationism.

no debate on if evolution is true or if god exist just wondering a yes or no on if you did your research and how long you spent researching it.

and i meant reading books written by actual creationist not evolutionist claiming creationist, say this but this is why there wrong (this kind of thing can easily be a straw man to knock down and pretend they won)

also references would be nice

here's a quote:
"Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight"

want to research it now? try this link.

http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/debates/

(it isn't much just a video with some interesting points you can take for thought or ignore I really don't care, what you believe is none of my business)
If evoloution is true, how do you tell right from wrong?
What the flying fuck.
That was my first thought from his first question, I legitimately do not understand the relevance of this from any viewpoint in the context of which it is spoken of.
His claim is because there was a list of ten things that said "lying is bad" it is therefore a given. Without this list people wouldn't have figured it out either I suppose?
There are plenty societies out there without the word of god and they too have figured out that lying, cheating, stealing, murder and all that bad stuff is wrong and punishable, without your god.
Animals also have such a system and they obviously will not be able to read the word of god.

Honestly his whole point that revolves around this is total crap.

I will continue to watch this video however, I already cannot stand his blatent agenda. Showing pictures of his wife and kids in order to make him seem more homely and likable, then considering to point out that professors wouldn't talk to him.
Why would they not want to talk to this humble homely man?
Also his text on the website is full of just as much agenda as he claims the "liberals have against him"

He's talking about lies and yet he's filling his own speech with misdirection and lies before he even gets to his reasons.
 

AlexNora

New member
Mar 7, 2011
207
0
0
Samurai Silhouette said:
AlexNora said:
that's just it i'm terrible with studying iv always disliked school
Do you have any idea how bad this makes your side of the argument look?
if you think that makes me look bad? really?

and please tell me witch side am i on. i don't remember telling anyone.