Poll: Evolution and the other side

[AlexNora]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

"irreducible complexity".

ARRRRRRRRRGH!!!!! That argument just needs to die!!!

(anyone know how to embed?)

['youtube=(the last set of numbers and letters after the equal sign in the youtube url)'] and no /closing tag

 

[Keith Keiser]

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]

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)

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

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.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

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?

 

[Jonluw]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ambi]

I grew up as a creationist until I was about fourteen. I had some creationist teachers and my dad subscribed to the Creation magazine and had some Ken Ham books. I didn't understand science.

What's with all the evolution vs. creation threads?
And religion vs. science/atheism threads, in general?
They're rampant. Stop making them. No-ones mind ever gets changed on the Internet.

Mine did.

But the most important question of all was not yet answered, which god are we talking about?

I know, eh? Even if they disproved the theory of evolution, no-one would be able to prove their god did it. I don't even know why people try to make faith claims look logical and scientifically valid, because it wouldn't require faith if you could prove it. People should not be obligated to read up on religious criticism of evolution when trying to figure something out from a scientific point of view.

 

[Sight Unseen]

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.

There are some things though that are too definitive to have been co-incidences. Another escapist on a previous thread put on a youtube clip talking about how a bunch of ape species all have an extra chromosome pair than we do. This would normally look like good evidence that we may not be related right? until you look into the chromosomes and find that in human DNA there is one chromosome ( chromosome #2 I believe) which clearly shows evidence that it was actually once two chromosomes that had merged together, and the two hypothetical chromosomes match very closely with two chromosomes that the ape species have. Using evolutionary theory, this means that logically, at one point humankind broke off from the apes and had a chromosome fusion some time after that, and points to a common ancestry.

In creationist terms... god was bored one day and decided to mix up Man's DNA (when man is supposed to be the perfect image of God) ? Yeah it doesn't make sense, and it's too specific to be a co-incidence.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

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.

this is the reason I don't believe evolution

 

[AlexNora]

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.

that's really not the point his moral system is his moral system i know i know its irrelevant but at the same time it is a interesting question isnt it? you don't have to watch it or if you want skip some stuff no big deal right? the Q&A at the end is fun to watch no matter what side your on

 

[mesoforte]

*snip*

It fails as a philosophical theory just because it destroys the point of philosophy. Clarity.

Maybe a theological 'theory'?

When did philosophical become the 'can't be proved or disproved,' anyways? There are standards of proof you can set up in philosophy, as well as the entire concept of the burden of proof. There's even a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" which is covered by this 'can't be disproved or proven' angle.

This is bothering me now. -_-

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.

You think evolution is like a 'fairy tale.'

From a different thread, but it wasn't that long ago.