Poll: Evolution and the other side

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
I have seen as much "evidence" for Creationism that's out there (from AiG, ICR, etc.). The fact is the "evidence" doesn't point to Creation at all - all they ever try to do is cast doubt on evolution under some misguided notion that if science got it wrong they'll be correct by default. Not only that, but their criticisms of evolution are almost always based on lies and deception, deliberately misrepresenting what science claims and ignoring anyone that tries to clarify their misrepresentation.

Whilst Creationists themselves may be more gullible than dishonest, the "Creation scientists" are dishonest as fuck.
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
I wrote "no", because after give or take 13 years of Religion in school, and until I was 13-14 church every week (last time I've been there was on a walk with my dog, and it was only 'cause it was on the way ;d didn't even look inside), I have yet to see a convincing ARGUMENT, much less proof.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
what scientific evidence ?
can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?
creationism
well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
poundingmetal74 said:
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.
Wasn't it covered in Genisis how the Serpent had it's legs taken away? Just saying.

DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
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.
I could be wrong. Lets look at some similar experiments. One by Louis Pasteur. He had a sterilized broth of amino acids, proteins, and DNA that he kept the air out of by using water in a bent tube. As seen here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v5i11g1.jpg

Note that there is no growth within the broth (dead things stayed dead) until the neck is broken and air is introduced. (life is introduced into a dead space and life grew) Pasteur proved that life only comes from pre-existing life.

Which brings us back to Dr. Miller.. Even if Stanley Miller?s experiment showed that all the amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc., found in living things today could be produced in high concentrations in water by natural processes, it would not matter because Pasteur?s experiment proved that those organic molecules would not come to life.

Organic molecules did appear after a few days. But only 8 of the 20 required amino acids were produced.

Which brings me to a mistake I made. You are right that left and right handed amino acids can exist together and not cause too much problem. However, Left and right handed proteins are different. Oddly enough, Evolutionists are apparently not wanting to speak of it from the lack of talk on 'their' sites. You can read more on these sites I found: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10b.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i11f.htm
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
what scientific evidence ?
can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?
creationism
well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.
That's not scientific anything. That's philosophy, and there are competing philosophies that are equally rational given the same universe, thus this cannot not be a proof.

"I like this universe and it'd be nice if someone made it for us" isn't science, that's religion.

When science is asking for evidence, they mean scientific evidence not religious dogma.

That requires experimentation and observation. And no 'The universe exists therefore someone made it' is not even a logical proof. Lots of things exist that are not made by people, but by simple randomness. For example: The very beautiful cloud formations that form before a storm.
 

thtool

New member
Jun 15, 2011
16
0
0
Creationism does not reflect reality, evolution does. Why the hell would I give it a chance if it's already wrong, incredibly religious-based, and has been proven to be dishonest and propaganda-spewing?

It's just damn christian evangelists thinking up lies to back up their idea that their own religion is the actual, 'true' religion.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
I could be wrong. Lets look at some similar experiments. One by Louis Pasteur. He had a sterilized broth of amino acids, proteins, and DNA that he kept the air out of by using water in a bent tube. As seen here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v5i11g1.jpg

Note that there is no growth within the broth (dead things stayed dead) until the neck is broken and air is introduced. (life is introduced into a dead space and life grew) Pasteur proved that life only comes from pre-existing life.

Which brings us back to Dr. Miller.. Even if Stanley Miller?s experiment showed that all the amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc., found in living things today could be produced in high concentrations in water by natural processes, it would not matter because Pasteur?s experiment proved that those organic molecules would not come to life.
And yes, without oxygen, most combustive reactions cannot occur. No one is refuting this point.

However, Louis Pasteur's exeriment was not endothermic. It was not adding energy... so absolutely no endothermic reaction would occur.

Organic molecules did appear after a few days. But only 8 of the 20 required amino acids were produced.
So, what then would happen if said experiment were continued for thousands of years?

Of course, that experiment also included electricity with that water. This allows for endothermic reactions to occur. Like, for example, the endothermic reaction where water becomes hydrogen and oxygen. Which is necessary for those amino acids (or, in fact, ANY acid) to form anyways.

Which brings me to a mistake I made. You are right that left and right handed amino acids can exist together and not cause too much problem. However, Left and right handed proteins are different. Oddly enough, Evolutionists are apparently not wanting to speak of it from the lack of talk on 'their' sites. You can read more on these sites I found: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10b.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i11f.htm
The point is... stating that most of the amino acids happen to be of the handedness that form bacteria isn't exactly debunking the idea that bacteria formed... OR that life could not form that could use either handedness.

You are correct in stating the experiment did not produce certain chemicals, however you are BLATANTLY WRONG in stating there'd be no oxygen, and you haven't proven that life could not have been formed under those conditions. The only thing proven is that a few days is not long enough to create the first bacteria.



EXPERIMENT UPDATE:

I have eaten the 500ml of mocha flavored yogurt, and I am feeling full. This is probably due two having eaten a pound of yogurt, but it could be the start of my death thrall.

Updates soon.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
Hyper-space said:
kidd25 said:
well not every one agrees that it was 4,000 years ago some people say it was longer, but the thing about man is made of dirt, i thought man had traces of zinc and other substance found in rock in them, explain that please?
By longer do you mean 4.54 billion years longer? cause that's the correct age of earth.

And yes, there are trace amounts of zinc in fluids such as semen and plays a big biological role, which doesn't mean that we are made from metal.

So explain this anecdotal leap from having trace amounts of metallic chemical elements in our body to use being made from dirt.

AlexNora said:
yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time (like cancer research clinics) (i really am sure the cure for cancer has always existed) (pm if you want to hear about that to)
)
Are you high?

EDIT:
kidd25 said:
most people, believe this theory as a fact, so :p 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 ^_^
Your ignorance and stupidity astounds me. The laymen term "Theory" is the equivalent of the scientific term "Hypothesis", while the scientific term "Theory" means something that has been proven and can be repeated with the same result coming up every time.
first of all, really? "your ignorance and stupidity astounds me" hey guess what you no better than a man who lives and die so don't think your all high and mighty, you wanna prove me wrong fine. don't insult someone who you have no knowledge of ok.
also i never said we were made from metal, i said from earth, if your an evolution then why can't along the lines of evolution we use some of their materials to help advances our self?
4.54 billion ok that pretty good date, but it seems fit for evolution the most creationist would go back might be 8 to 12 thousand. Also that pretty sure number, even with the 20 different dating methods that we have today, as shown here http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

also be nice when replying, it helps keep the mind to think of way to help the person, not make them mad :/
 

coolkirb

New member
Jan 28, 2011
429
0
0
Do we really need another topic for athiests to prance around and pretend they are smarter then others.
 

Knight Templar

Moved on
Dec 29, 2007
3,848
0
0
monfang said:
I really must ask, do you intend to adress my points or can we expect you to react like this again?
Because it looks like you are unable to adress my post and are simply running from it.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
DracoSuave said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
what scientific evidence ?
can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?
creationism
well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.
That's not scientific anything. That's philosophy, and there are competing philosophies that are equally rational given the same universe, thus this cannot not be a proof.

"I like this universe and it'd be nice if someone made it for us" isn't science, that's religion.

When science is asking for evidence, they mean scientific evidence not religious dogma.

That requires experimentation and observation. And no 'The universe exists therefore someone made it' is not even a logical proof. Lots of things exist that are not made by people, but by simple randomness. For example: The very beautiful cloud formations that form before a storm.
well made point, bookmarking that. To get this evidence you would have to then find a way to explain why is this world so orderly at its core, everything has matter, everything has a way of working. philosophies used to be part of science, so i cannot see why it won't work today? Well you also assume that we just made up God in sentence while this could turn into a argument about God it seem that it kinda has to, for asking the question why is this world, how it is? the bible says that we were created in his image, other words the ability to reason to ask questions to want to learn more. this will seem ignorant i won't lie, but to get to the point where you say "hey someone created this, we should study it, and learn as much as we can about it." doesn't seem bad. i grant you that in the old days people said God did this and that, and today we have scientific proof of just about alot of things, which is great. But yeah long story short, the universe was created by the big bang, then what created the big bang, science better not say anything until they study it more.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
I don't get why they're trying to apply science to religion, in most of the stuff I've read they pretty much say what happened, then filled in the cracks with "because God did it". That's...not how science works, theories are heavily tested, black holes exist, they've been proven to, not just because Steven Hawken said so, he PROVED it.

If you want to believe in religion that's fine, magic stuff happened and we're here. But trying to prove it scientifically doesn't work because it can't be proven. Call it gods will it can't be proven, I don't care. I've never seen science and religion work together.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
coolkirb said:
Do we really need another topic for athiests to prance around and pretend they are smarter then others.
i like to use these thread, as a science in the works, teaching and learning from many parts of the world... too happy sounding i need some horror now :/ also yeah these topic will never die, but hey every time you get a chance to exercise your brain go for it ^)^
 

Rems

New member
May 29, 2011
143
0
0
You know what's interesting? I went to a Christian, Jesuit run private school. There where hymns, masses, religious education etc. However we were never taught creationism as fact (or even at all for that matter). Evolution (and all manner of other science) was however taught to us by trained professionals. I just find this interesting, you can't tarbrush all Christians as the same. perhaps that's just due to the Jesuit reputation for education and rather liberal thinking.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
kidd25 said:
well not every one agrees that it was 4,000 years ago some people say it was longer, but the thing about man is made of dirt, i thought man had traces of zinc and other substance found in rock in them, explain that please?
It's part of our diet. We eat zinc (on purpose) therefore it is in our bodies.

This is hard?

AlexNora said:
yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time (like cancer research clinics) (i really am sure the cure for cancer has always existed) (pm if you want to hear about that to)
)
Are you high?

EDIT:
kidd25 said:
most people, believe this theory as a fact, so :p 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 ^_^
Your ignorance and stupidity astounds me. The laymen term "Theory" is the equivalent of the scientific term "Hypothesis", while the scientific term "Theory" means something that has been proven and can be repeated with the same result coming up every time.[/quote]

first of all, really? "your ignorance and stupidity astounds me" hey guess what you no better than a man who lives and die so don't think your all high and mighty, you wanna prove me wrong fine. don't insult someone who you have no knowledge of ok.
also i never said we were made from metal,[/quote]

what is this i dont even

i said from earth, if your an evolution then why can't along the lines of evolution we use some of their materials to help advances our self?
4.54 billion ok that pretty good date, but it seems fit for evolution the most creationist would go back might be 8 to 12 thousand. Also that pretty sure number, even with the 20 different dating methods that we have today, as shown here http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm
Disproving the religious assertation on a specific recent creation date of the universe is so easy it's not even of concern to science.

All you need to do is find an object that is so far away from the earth that light travelling from it would take longer to reach us than said religious 'theory' claims is the universe's age.

If said date happens to be 12,000, we only need to find an object further than 12,000 light years away.

Fortunately, thousands of them are visible with the naked eye after the sun sets.

also be nice when replying, it helps keep the mind to think of way to help the person, not make them mad :/
 

AdamRBi

New member
Feb 7, 2010
528
0
0
Creationism, like many things related to religion, I've always seen as a way of explaining the unexplainable when no other information was available. Electricity, like lightning, used to be seen as something only a god could produce until we researched it and found out what actually causes it. Creationism is the same way; we don't know what happen so we'll say a god did it until we have further evidence.

Now that we have evidence for how life was created and evolved why would we go back? Even if the evidence isn't perfect, even if it has gaps that require more research, or even if it's false and replaced by a better theory later down the line when technology grows to examine it deeper why would we go back to "I don't know, it must be god?" Seems uncanny that that is the extent of some people's imagination.

That's like if I went to bake a pizza and while good it didn't turn out like Dominos, so I scrapped it thinking that Domino's was the only and best pizza out there and I could never match it. This is true to some extent, I do cook pizza at home; I research the ingredients, mix the dough, spread the toppings, and bake it. First time was a little off, but I kept at it. You can bet it's now better then anything Dominos makes; even if it takes a little longer.

My point is this; If you want to use a god to explain the unexplainable that's your choice and it's not a bad one. But what's the use of going backwards when we should really be moving forward?

Now to the point of the thread, no. In all honesty if there is evidence beyond the bible that explains the science behind Creationism I haven't seen it. There are points made on this thread that I scanned over, but a lot of those don't sound like evidence for creationism; what they sound like are attempts to disprove evolution.

It's been said, disproving one does not prove the other. Creationism, if you don't mind me simplifying it, says that a god created the animals fully formed. I'm not sure what they call the belief that a god created the spark that set off evolution, but I'm sure it has a name and it makes a little more sense for some to believe that. Creationism though has been overthrown and it's irritating to see so many people try to fight against science to protect their belief instead of fighting along side science to find out the truth about how all this crazy stuff that exists on the earth actually got here.
 

Kataskopo

New member
Dec 18, 2009
121
0
0
I love how people believe stuff that can be easily refutable with a google search.
Just heard it from a guy in a video, and yep, it must be true and I wont even try to validate those assertions.

People, you have an obligation to seek the truth in your life, or at least try to not be wrong. Don't you doubt yourself?
Don't you think "huh, you know what, I "may" be wrong, I'm gonna check some stuff to see what this ruckus is all about."

I love too how people mistake abiogenesis (the study of how life came to being) with evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to being.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
kidd25 said:
Hyper-space said:
kidd25 said:
well not every one agrees that it was 4,000 years ago some people say it was longer, but the thing about man is made of dirt, i thought man had traces of zinc and other substance found in rock in them, explain that please?
By longer do you mean 4.54 billion years longer? cause that's the correct age of earth.

And yes, there are trace amounts of zinc in fluids such as semen and plays a big biological role, which doesn't mean that we are made from metal.

So explain this anecdotal leap from having trace amounts of metallic chemical elements in our body to use being made from dirt.

AlexNora said:
yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time (like cancer research clinics) (i really am sure the cure for cancer has always existed) (pm if you want to hear about that to)
)
Are you high?

EDIT:
kidd25 said:
most people, believe this theory as a fact, so :p 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 ^_^
Your ignorance and stupidity astounds me. The laymen term "Theory" is the equivalent of the scientific term "Hypothesis", while the scientific term "Theory" means something that has been proven and can be repeated with the same result coming up every time.
first of all, really? "your ignorance and stupidity astounds me" hey guess what you no better than a man who lives and die so don't think your all high and mighty, you wanna prove me wrong fine. don't insult someone who you have no knowledge of ok.
also i never said we were made from metal, i said from earth, if your an evolution then why can't along the lines of evolution we use some of their materials to help advances our self?
4.54 billion ok that pretty good date, but it seems fit for evolution the most creationist would go back might be 8 to 12 thousand. Also that pretty sure number, even with the 20 different dating methods that we have today, as shown here http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

also be nice when replying, it helps keep the mind to think of way to help the person, not make them mad :/
In case you were confused about this, no, humanity does not share a common ancestor with dirt. no animal mated with some dirt and created humans. You're welcome for this enlightening knowledge.