Poll: Evolution and the other side

[RUINER ACTUAL]

I'm more interested in the universe as a whole rather than the creation of humans. I've looked up science on that, and the best bull shit story I could find was the Light-in-Transit Theory, which says that starlight was put in the sky by god for us to see later. If that's the best "science" they have for that, anything more specific, such as the creation of humans, is simply retarded.

 

[babinro]

I did a few years back...can't say I remember enough to argue in favor of it other than it really made me question the validity of evolutionist theory.

I'm comfortable in saying that creationism has merit, but I don't fully support either theory because there's just too many unknowns for both of them.

 

[Raven_Operative]

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

As a theist, I surprisingly agree with you. Not to start any debates here, but is is impossible to prove the existence of a God, and is also impossible to disprove it. Therefore, the only things theists can do is point out holes in the arguments of atheists in an attempt shift thinking to the idea that maybe a god does exist.

 

[BlueMage]

A couple things:

Do you have a source for the lava flow/dinosaur footprint story that isn't that scienceagainstevolution website?

I could have designed a website like that when I was 14 learning basic HTML and it makes my eyes hurt with the awful colour selections, it doesn't look like a very credible source to me.

Finally, personal opinions NEVER qualify as proof of anything because they are inherently subjective.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating

A credible, NON-BIASED source perhaps? Is this too hard to ask for?

 

[Raven_Operative]

I did a few years back...can't say I remember enough to argue in favor of it other than it really made me question the validity of evolutionist theory.

I'm comfortable in saying that creationism has merit, but I don't fully support either theory because there's just too many unknowns for both of them.

Wow... your post made my day. I have finally found someone who actually keeps an open mind instead of instantly claiming that an idea / concept is bullshit.

 

[evilneko]

-snip-

-snip-

The "human footprints among dinosaurs" that he refers to were shown to be fraudulent. I've been there, hell I've been to the "Creation Museum" where they proudly displayed casts of them (along with a video about them), despite the fact that they were thoroughly debunked years ago. Here's the talkorigins.org article on them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Hmm. Well, I guess I could be wrong then. My apologies. Though I wish I was lucky enough to go to the Creation Museum.

You are wrong on many things. In fact, everything. I addressed that one in particular since someone else asked for a source on it.

Also the Creation "Museum" was rather boring, most of it consisted of a long, boring video of creationists spouting their nonsense. There were a few actual exhibits, one of which was the mis-identified tracks they tried to claim were human.

 

[monfang]

Then Knight, I guess that the scientist who researched the Griffon was completely wrong.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6811.html

If you get the book, it's page 16,page 26 page 29 page 30-32 38 page xiii page 40 page 3 page 51 page 50 page 45 page 55 pages 55-57 page 58 page 58 pages 130-139 pages 72-129 page 115 page 80 page 165 page 168

I also already gave the source for the age thing a few posts back.

 

[Luke5515]

I grew up in a religious family.
The sad fact is, there really isn't any scientific evidence that gets anywhere close to plausibility of creationism. Religious evolutionist(saying that we evolved because god intended it) are okay in my book, but straight up creationists, in my opinion, are not correct.

 

[Raven_Operative]

A couple things:

Do you have a source for the lava flow/dinosaur footprint story that isn't that scienceagainstevolution website?

I could have designed a website like that when I was 14 learning basic HTML and it makes my eyes hurt with the awful colour selections, it doesn't look like a very credible source to me.

Finally, personal opinions NEVER qualify as proof of anything because they are inherently subjective.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating

A credible, NON-BIASED source perhaps? Is this too hard to ask for?

Not to get involved with someone else's discussion, but that comment is really a pet peeve of mine.

There is no such thing as an "unbiased" source. Everyone has biases, even the scientists writing textbooks for schools, and therefore the biases always slip into their writings.

 

[monfang]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating

A credible, NON-BIASED source perhaps? Is this too hard to ask for?

Good luck finding any source that isn't biased. The only thing one can do is read what they write and compare it to things that are fact.

 

[cybran]

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

Unstable ? evolution is all but unstable, its the survival for the fittest, and it couldn't be LESS random. The most successful species live on, and those species that dont fit the ecosystem, or anyneighbouring ecosystem will eventually die out. And you call this unstable ?
(and btw, I have a top mark in biology, im curious at what you got if you dont believe evolution)

 

[shootandshiver]

im pretty well studied, and i just enjoyed a fine Century Sam.

The science for evolution is unbroken. i just learned how the chromosomes work, two by twenty two plus two. We're all young men here. Ya gotta know, ive been getting a little randy in my latest work.

So, im havin trouble skippin the story, but it all dates back to the molten earth era when the moon was split from the planet. There was probably life before that, but that i dont know.

Creation, for what its worth, might exist, in one form or another. Books are rewriten for their land, but they all seem to be about the same in the end, whether we hang around in a long lifes paradise, or dream of a new body after tired peace, or the wild dreams of shamen

Both seem true. I know enough to know witching water works. The divining rods, to find a well dig, or oil. Most oil in texas was found with two sticks. maybe ill make a thread on it.

There is a definate and strong story back to the hadean era, and life has laws. but the astral is no doubt is real where ive been.

I've gotta find a meaner cigar, cuz i love you all

 

[monfang]

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

Unstable ? evolution is all but unstable, its the survival for the fittest, and it couldn't be LESS random. The most successful species live on, and those species that dont fit the ecosystem, or anyneighbouring ecosystem will eventually die out. And you call this unstable ?
(and btw, I have a top mark in biology, im curious at what you got if you dont believe evolution)

I got top mark in Biology too.

Natural selection and microevolution (things like breeding) are things that I believe to be true. Species have been dieing out for thousands of years. More than 10K die out each year if I remember that statistic correctly. I could be wrong. But those two facts are true.

 

[Fudd]

I used to be a literal, 6-day creationist though I've not been since about grade 6 or so and my view softened and changed quickly through old-earth creationism before settling into soft and then hard support for evolutionary theory throughout my stay at several christian colleges. Ultimately I simply came to realize that the creationism taught among evangelicals in the United States is simply a manifestation of religious modernism and a product of a number of factors and influences that are, shall we say, questionable. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that creationism as practiced by Kent Hovind and others of his "kind" (laugh dammit) is neither theologically nor scientifically sound and that theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism do a far better job of the theology than hopelessly broken literalist understandings of Genesis and indeed of the rest of scripture.

Also it would seem that those denominations and Churches with a strong, educated, theological tradition agree with my position. It is certainly the literalists who stand beyond the bounds, as it were, and who will continue to remain there as long as the nasty anti-intellectual streak continues to exist among those denominations that practice hard literalist interpretations of scripture.

 

[Wuggy]

Have I researched "scientific evidence" for creationism? No. But the reason is not because I'm not willing to look from another point of view. The reason is because there isn't any evidence, and certainly nothing scientific.

What I have done, however, is look on the arguments on the other side. And I have been able to debunk them, even being very very far from being any kind of an expert on evolution or abiogenesis.

 

[DracoSuave]

yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time

The conspiracy theorist aspects of your post were snipped.

In the context of trying to advance a scientific agenda, no, experiments are not a waste of time. They are, in fact, the entire basis of science. No experiments = Not science.

??? conspiracy i'm just saying some things don't need to be looked at like if my computer screen broke i wouldn't check the mother board for problems. im saying try aproching evolution from a different angle.

Rhetorical bullshit.

You're looking at the "contraversy" that ONLY exists in areas where religious groups hold sway, that Creationism is a "scientific theory". By framing the idea that way, it invites scientific analysis.

It's not that people want to say the world wasn't created, it's that scientists don't want scientific discussion clouded with discussion of non-science put forth by non-scientific agendas.

And in that sense, yes, experimentation is absolutely necessary.

Also, just so you know, when fixing things, basic troubleshooting actually follows the scientific method as well.

 

[Knight Templar]

Then Knight, I guess that the scientist who researched the Griffon was completely wrong.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6811.html

If you get the book, it's page 16,page 26 page 29 page 30-32 38 page xiii page 40 page 3 page 51 page 50 page 45 page 55 pages 55-57 page 58 page 58 pages 130-139 pages 72-129 page 115 page 80 page 165 page 168

That author is suggesting Griffons came from people seeing the bones and thinking what it was when alive.
Which while certainly an intresting theory, it isn't one that supports your idea that they were alive at the time.

I also already gave the source for the age thing a few posts back.

Which just points out that Potassium?argon dating isn't very reliable if the material is young, which is already known, it's why you can't use just one method of dating.

 

[evilneko]

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

Unstable ? evolution is all but unstable, its the survival for the fittest, and it couldn't be LESS random. The most successful species live on, and those species that dont fit the ecosystem, or anyneighbouring ecosystem will eventually die out. And you call this unstable ?
(and btw, I have a top mark in biology, im curious at what you got if you dont believe evolution)

I got top mark in Biology too.

Natural selection and microevolution (things like breeding) are things that I believe to be true. Species have been dieing out for thousands of years. More than 10K die out each year if I remember that statistic correctly. I could be wrong. But those two facts are true.

There is no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Claiming that there is is like saying that one can walk ten steps but not a thousand. If you want to prove that speciation is not possible (good luck, since it has been observed) then you must provide evidence of a mechanism to prevent it.

 

[monfang]

Then Knight, I guess that the scientist who researched the Griffon was completely wrong.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6811.html

If you get the book, it's page 16,page 26 page 29 page 30-32 38 page xiii page 40 page 3 page 51 page 50 page 45 page 55 pages 55-57 page 58 page 58 pages 130-139 pages 72-129 page 115 page 80 page 165 page 168

That author is suggesting Griffons came from people seeing the bones and thinking what it was when alive.
Which while certainly an intresting theory, it isn't one that supports your idea that they were alive at the time.

I also already gave the source for the age thing a few posts back.

Which just points out that Potassium?argon dating isn't very reliable if the material is young, which is already known, it's why you can't use just one method of dating.

Other parts support it, KT. Like "This animal was no simple composite; it didn?t seem to belong with the obviously imaginary hybrids of Greek tradition like Pegasus (a horse with wings), the Sphinx (a winged lion with a woman?s head), the Minotaur (a man with a bull?s head), and the half-man, half-horse Centaurs. Indeed, the griffin played no role in Greek mythology. It was a creature of folklore grounded in naturalistic details.
Unlike the other monsters who dwelled in the mythical past, the griffin was not the offspring of gods and was not associated with the adventures of Greek gods or heroes. Instead, griffins were generic animals believed to exist in the preset day; they were encountered by ordinary people who prospected for gold in distant lands." Page 16

"The griffin was much more than a static decorative motif; it was imagined and depicted as a real animal with recognizable behavioral traits. ? I sought out that unique bronze metope, a decorated plaque created for the Temple of Zeus in about 630 B.C. The artist had portrayed a fierce mother griffin with a baby griffin nestled under her ribs (fig 1.5). Sarah Morris, now a professor of classical archaeology at UCLA, showed me another griffin family scene on a Mycenaean vase of about 1150 B.C., painted well before the first known written accounts of the griffin. In that vignette, a griffin pair tends two nestlings. What inspired such naturalistic images of griffin life? The imagery of griffins did not follow any standard mythological narratives-instead, the artists seemed to be imagining the behavior of an unusual animal they had heard described but had never seen. " Page 26

What would make the Greeks think up the Griffins as motherly? To come up with such far fetched details that even now our Scientists have to make HUGE leaps of faith to come up with instead of treating them as the same as mythical creatures.

 

[DracoSuave]

tl;dr Anti-religion dribble.

Have I done research on Creationism and Evolution. Yes.

I put my bets with Creationism. On the surface, Evolution is nice until you start to see how it contradicts itself. None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years.

Science can prove things that you can see with the naked eye (re: look up at stars) are more than 5000 years old. In fact, it can prove there are objects out there older than any arbitrary date you set for the creation for the universe, save those put forth by science which involve numbers in the billions.

They pick and choose who is 'qualified' and they are mostly people who won't argue against the status quo.

By requiring schooling and a grounding in the principles of the scientific method. You have to understand the process of science before you can be called a scientist. This is no different than religious organizations requiring theological study before one can call oneself a theologian.

They hide facts like finding dinosaur bones among human bones, human footprints among dinosaurs, the 'missing links' they find are always human skulls on ape bodies.

You're going to have to be very specific here. It sounds like a bunch of made-up shit. Which paleantological studies have found these things, and what was done to determine these things were of the same age as the other artifacts at each site?

They don't answer how the Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings.

Really? Dinosaurs? Be specific.

Their lame attempt at putting animals on a tree to prove evolution is so full of contradictions that I could make a website about it.

Name one.

Or I can link someone else who did already: http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/

Good news. You've found yet another website filled with essays that can all be summarized as this: 'How dare scientists study things that we're told are true! We know them to be false, so despite the evidence to the contrary, we must still assume they are wrong! How dare they advance human knowledge! Clearly, because they don't have all the answers, we must be right!'

In other words... bullshit.

But as you support creationism, scientificly.

Can you please present to this community the experiments performed that support creationism or intellegent design?

Can you take one of those 'contradictions' in evolution, and can you design an experiment that further proves your hypothesis? I mean, if these 'contradictions' are so obvious, SURELY some scientist must have tested it. After all, evolutionists have been trying to disprove evolution for years. Clearly someone who actually disbelieves evolution can do no less?

Show your work, or remove yourself from scientific discssuions.