Poll: Evolution and the other side

[Stall]

There is no scientific evidence for creation, because IT ISN'T SCIENCE. It's theology.

If such evidence doesn't exist, then how is it possible to study it?

 

[Yopaz]

Yes I have. I have actually played devil's advocate in some arguments against evolution (and won a few).

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?)

If you don't mind, I would like to get in on that too.

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.

Apes are just a superfamily called Hominoidea. Biology(Taxonomy to be precise) has us classified as "ape" or "Hominoidea". Evolution does in fact claim we evolved from apes, and biology claims we are still apes.

OK... so you got some facts right there, but NO educated biologist will tell you humans evolved from apes. We have the same origin as the modern ape, we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes or hominoidea is as you said a super family and neither super family nor super group is a good phylogenic way to arrange things. They're there because it's more convenient than the normal divisions. You might claim there is no difference between saying we evolved from apes and had the same origin, but every biologist curse the man who first said that. It's the statement that is the root to the creationist defense "Then why didn't all apes end up as humans?". What we evolved from is a specie that is extinct a long time ago.

 

[fenrizz]

Studied the scientific evidence for creation?

Of course not.
There is no such thing as scientific evidence for creation.

Irreducable complexity?
Oh please. Every god damn time the scientific community explains/proves one of your "irreducably complex" organs, you just go "Oh yeah, but this one over here you can't explain!".

And sure, science may not be able to explain your examples right away.
But that does not mean that your god did it.

Finding a small hole in a theory, a minor inaccuracy or something we can not yet explain does not make evolution invalid.
It only means that there is still work to be done.

Now please leave your fairytale out of our science.

 

[Monkey lord]

what scientific evidence ?

 

[Active Schizophrenic]

I for me It was the other way around I was creationist, studied evolution, evolution was more factually accurate, accept evolution as fact, still be christian. also to the asshole's who claim there is NO creationism evidence there is a lot of it and you must be really ignorant if your just going to ignore such a wide-spread belief and stick your head in the ground. Its like the westboro church of atheism in here.

P.S. lots of people looking for their Hot topic badges recently, eh?

 

[Naeo]

As a physics major in college and a science geek in high school, I can pretty certainly say that it is impossible to "scientifically" research creationism/intelligent design because they are unfalsifiable hypotheses. That is, there is no way to disprove them, but not for lack of contradicting evidence. They cannot be disproved because they cannot be tested. So in turn, they cannot be proved, and thus, are not science. Anyone who tries to claim that these untestable hypotheses are science and should be taught as science are, frankly, completely ignorant as to what science is, how it works, and so on.

 

[BRex21]

I watched that video, that guy is an idiot. He ignores ring species and uses arguments along the lines of "why can't my corn produce hampsters?" he thinks evolution should contain the origins of the universe and he uses massive hypocrisy in his points on willful ignorance.
If you think this guy has a point, you obviously never gave evolution a chance.

 

[CrazyMedic]

based on my research really the only creationist thing that makes sense is the baker theory basically god did not say "I think I will make a dinosaur today" but created the baby universe and caused the big bang knowing what would come from it like a baker baking a cake.

 

[Hyper-space]

snip

How much of a serious look do you need when deciding which has more merit:

Something that is backed up by fossils, carbon-dating, mountains of evidence and has been proven time and time again,

Or...

Some shit that people pulled from thousands of years old fairy-tales that says that the earth is 4000 years old and man was made from dirt.

I mean, really, you have to be mads kinds of retard to even consider the latter option.

EDIT:

But we are apes. What we evolved from would technically be classified as an ape. The common ancestor we share with modern apes, I would argue, is still an ape.

There will be a common ancestor even farther back, one shared by all modern primates, that would not have been an ape. But to say that our species didn't evolve from an ape is rather an odd claim to make.

PRIMATES, not APES. Fuck.

 

[Avalanche91]

I know its against the rules stated by the OP, but I'm not even 30 minutes into the video and my facepalm-o-meter is already nearing the max potential.

I am sorry, but I can not see creatonism as a science, and this guy is literally talking out of his ass..

The guy claims we have no evidence for the evolution theory, and claims scholars are willfully ignorant of the facts.......
.......I
........what?

I would be laughing if it wasn't so sad. Is this guy for real? SERIOUSLY? This goes beyond projecting, this is just flinging his own shit.


My apologies for merely critiquing the source material used in the OP. My intention was merely to point out the extreme contradictions in the lecture given by a spokesperson of the creationist side of the argument. In my experience evolution theories tend to give more plausible scenario's and some actual facts instead of speculation, denial and hot air.

that was all.

 

[zakkro]

Yes, I have. I'd argue that a lot of people who do see a pattern emerge, though: all, or most of, the evidence put forth by creationists (more specifically the ID proponents) are really there to discredit evolution, not help prove their own point. They have it set up so that the only two possible choices are their side, or evolution, which is a fallacy onto itself, and is amazingly transparent.

 

[Evidencebased]

Seriously, I would honestly love to see one piece of this so-called "evidence" for Creationism. It doesn't even have to come from the OP -- who apparently gives zero shits about their own topic and is just asking for PMs ad nauseum -- but any "evidence" from anyone would be great.

Evidence?

Anyone?

...Bueller?

 

[karamazovnew]

Back in my believer age, I used to read a lot about, well, everything. There were a bunch of books dealing with both sides of evolution and creation. And even as a faithful, I thought that the creationist books were a bunch of utter crap. I began seeing Darwin's evolution theory as true while reading books which said he was wrong, how messed up is that? I now regard Darwin to be the biggest genius of all times, surpassing Einstein in improving our understanding about how everything works.

But a fun thing about being a reformed atheist(although I coin the phrase "agnosto-spiritual polideist") is that you can then read religious texts and understand them for the first time. The Bible is a splendid read once you start from scratch. The New Testament in particular is just... wow. Arm yourself with a few history books about life in Roman Judeea and you finally begin to understand the Bible. Yeap, everything there is true, although not in the way you might think. "He that hears let him hear, and he that understandeth let him understand". Best book ever written.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Science is about cosmic order.

Faith is about cosmic purpose.

The truly enlightened mind can embrace both without conflict.

EDIT: ...that came off as reallly judgemental, so allow me to amend. What I'm trying to say is that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, nor does one have to shoehorned in order to fit with the other.

It baffles me that so many of the faithful are so willfully ignorant on matters of history and science, driving themselves to a closed-minded isular community that does nothing but hurt the most basic tenets of faith.

It equally baffles me that so many atheists decry the "closed-minded creationists" of the world while they are, simultaneously, some of the most closed-minded people I've ever encountered, shutting out any possibility of a supernatural power at work in universe and using flimsy psuedo-scientific arguments to "prove it."

 

[evilneko]

/ThreadHop [small]As if it weren't obvious[/small]

I'm going to have to say no, because there isn't any.

Now if you ask if I've looked at the pseudoscience, misinterpretations, logical fallacies, and lies that creationists claim is evidence, then yes I have.

 

[conflictofinterests]

I don't think Creationists understand science very well. You can't experiment on hypotheses that don't have a condition in which they are false. The very notion of untruths being morally reprehensible is antithetical to the scientific process for this simple fact.

Also, why can't we poke holes in the evidence you presented us? That's what science is for: poking holes in (disproving) every goddamn thing until we find the things we can't poke holes in, which we accept as fact, until we figure out new methods of hole-poking.

 

[CityofTreez]

In the primary schools around here, from the ages of 4 up to 11 we are taught about Christianity.

They teach us all about Creation, and since we knew nothing to begin with we accept this as complete truth. Well I say "teach us ABOUT", it's more like "Tell us". They don't present it as a theory, or as something that might have happened. They tell us that it DID happen. We had to pray several times a day and also recite hymns.

So everyone around this area grows up being a Creationist really. We have science lessons about nature and our bodies, but the subject of the universe and creation is avoided really.

What I'm trying to say is, what actual research can be done on Creationism? I became interested in science quickly after leaving that cult (oops, school) and made a decision to believe in science and facts. I looked at Evolution and it seemed like a great theory with plenty of accumulating evidence to support it.

So having spent the first half of my life as a Creationist, I think that qualifies as research. Since there is no physical evidence for creation, it is kind of hard to research - unless you are talking about researching other people's theories on creation.

To sum up, I did give creation a chance. I didn't have a choice while learning about creation, but I made a choice to believe in science when I was 12. Some of my old school friends still are creationists, and that's fine.

I was in the same situation as you growing up. Went to school in a hard right creationist christian school (cult..)

I was taught that we were supposed to take the bible literal, they taught the earth was only 6,000 years old and all that jazz. When they did talk about evolution, they went to the childish argument "Well, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are we giving birth to humans and not monkeys?" /facedesk

Thankfully, I reached the age of sanity before it was too late for me.

 

[yookiwooki]

I'm sorry, I really tried to make it through the video, I really did. I could only make it like 6 minutes in.