Poll: Evolution and the other side

[evilneko]

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)

i would give you book references but lets face it books are not free and i get the feeling no one is going to drive to the local books store to look at them xD

(plus this video has a Q&A at the end that i think is interesting)

Do you also know that Kent Hovind is not a scientist, has no evidence to back up his claims (naturally since there isn't any), oh and he is a convicted felon?

I have studied creationism... I remember most of it.. and it's all..... BULL!
Seriously.. creationists take some phrases from Scientists and state them as proof that science failzzz... BULL!

.... what? um no please do some more studies before making fun of every creationists, "creationists take some phrases from Scientists and state them as proof that science failzzz" also what? are you saying that we use scientist phrases against them and it fails? or that we use it and science fails? please be more clear.

I can clarify that for you. A common creationist tactic is quote-mining. It's a dishonest tactic used to make it seem like someone said something they didn't.

 

[Monkey lord]

what scientific evidence ?

can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?

creationism

 

[loc978]

Yes, I actually have... and every time it doesn't make sense, it falls back on the excuse "God made it that way to test our faith", which can be used to justify quite literally anything.

 

[TheTurtleMan]

Why are there so many of these threads all the time, it's always x is wrong because y is correct. Maybe one in a hundred thousand people change their religious views due to an online debate, it's just like politics, there's no changing people's opinion no matter the side. All atheists online are assholes and all religious people are retards. That's essentially what most people are trying to prove in these type of threads. Sorry 4 rant.

OT: I've heard the creationist arguement many a time at my church and every time I hear it I just think about how incorrect it is. People at my church literally ignore things like carbon dating, fossils, and history that goes past about 6 thousand years. I just keep my head down and try to ignore it most of the time to be honest though.

 

[chstens]

well simple, God is a thing that is self-sustain and is all-powerful, thus creating the universe he shaped the world, and gave a sense of time to it as well. I don't really know how old the world is, but God claims to do all that is good. to put it in a human way of doing things, like an artist creating a wonderful, incredible painting that can never be duplicated in just a few days.

That still doesn't answer how someone can believe the earth is 6000 years old when we have proof of the contrary.

The keyword in the phrase 'Theory of Evolution' would be theory.
I just saved you a lot of time.

'Logic' is my Captcha. That's interesting.

most people, believe this theory as a fact, so 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 ^_^

You have to keep in mind that a scientific theory isn't like every other theory. A scientific theory is backed up by substantial data and research, something creationism is not, the only "proof" there is of creationism is a book that's roughly 1700 years old.

 

[Jabberwock King]

In order to actually study this subject, it 1st must have a viable model which can be tested. In order to establish that model, you must determine a hypothetical scenario that could render it false should it come to pass. This is known as falsifiability, and creationism is utterly incapable of producing a testable model that follows it.

Regardless, you seem to be referring to a man who was convicted on tax evasion charges. I know that to be an ad hominem attack, but I simply could not resist pointing that out. He is a despicable existence, a swindler and a crook, unworthy of praise or respect.

Also, the term "evolutionist" is completely meaningless to me, as it is a construct devised by think tanks who wish to "rebrand" their opposition. The word "evolutionist" is an attempt to drag a scientific theory down to the level of religion, presenting them as equal philosophies. When I hear a person say that they "believe in evolution", I cannot help but make a mental correction. You do not believe, you accept. To use the term "belief" indicates that the outcome can be affected by it, but it cannot.

Prepare to be assimilated.

 

[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.

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.

Now first of did you see where I said the super family is not a formal division? Thus super family is not a formal division thus APE is NOT a formal division. If we were to use super groups in formal cases reptiles and birds would not be related. But ignoring the super group birds evolved from reptiles. Super group is for convenience, NOT for formal phylogeny. Also the super family for ape is not monophyletic, it is at best polyphyletic and with our current knowledge we're closer to pan than any of the others.

Also biologist are really struggling to get this misconception out of the world. Why make it harder if you know both how confusing it is for those who know little or nothing about evolution and how damaging for those of us trying to educate people on evolution?

 

[AlexNora]

Why are there so many of these threads all the time, it's always x is wrong because y is correct. Maybe one in a hundred thousand people change their religious views due to an online debate, it's just like politics, there's no changing people's opinion no matter the side. All atheists online are assholes and all religious people are retards. That's essentially what most people are trying to prove in these type of threads. Sorry 4 rant.

OT: I've heard the creationist arguement many a time at my church and every time I hear it I just think about how incorrect it is. People at my church literally ignore things like carbon dating, fossils, and history that goes past about 6 thousand years. I just keep my head down and try to ignore it most of the time to be honest though.

lol i tried not to challenge any views but people are people more then business is business

 

[UnknownGunslinger]

Yes, I had looked for the other side of the "debate", but I found that scientific evidences for Creationism simply do not exist!
No, none of the points put forward by Creationists, can be labeled as scientific as they do not abide by the scientific principles of observation of the visible universe and measurable phenomena, and Occam's razor principle - "the simplest solution is often true", trying to intentionally fit new information in an old module of understanding, will lead to misunderstanding of the new data and the system as a whole, as it will not correspond to the observable reality! Those keep any and all scientific ideas in the realm of measurable and testable data.

Creationsist ideas in all their many, many, many, many branches such as:
Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Flat Earth Creationism, Gap Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism and Theistic Evolution & Evolutionary Creationism
Are all self-contradictory to themselves, each other, their reference materials (the Judeo-Christian tradition) and most of all other Sciences!

I'm not saying there is not a God!
I'm saying that the observable World does not support the need a God!
Debating over whether God exists, or whether some religious scriptures correspond to reality is all well and good - BUT IT'S NOT SCIENCE!!!
It's Philosophy people...Actually no, it's not even Philosophy it's Theology since it only looks at one of the Creation traditions that exist - the Christian one, completely shrugging off all others that exist or have ever existed!

So in the end I will say that it is in the realm of possibility that a God created the vast Universe, in order to (after billions of years and many, many other species on Earth) achieve humans, and then get closely involved in the life and troubles of each individual person as a cosmic judge who will weight judgment on you when you die based on whether you masturbated, or fancied the opposite sex!!!

So even though it is likely in the strictly theoretical sense of the word, and I don't mind you believing in what you're believing, all I'm saying is it's not Scientifically plausible under no scientific method tha ever existed, so...[HEADING=1]Stop calling it a Science and leave the rest of us the Frak alone![/HEADING]

 

[Hyper-space]

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.

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:

most people, believe this theory as a fact, so 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.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Yeah, I've found out one thing.

Neither creation nor lack of creation is physically possible, you'll just have to wait and see.

Fun fact: If something is undisproveable, it's automatically not even considered to be a scientific hypothesis. Why waste time trying to disprove a system of beleifs that's designed (through natural selection, ironically) to be undisproveable?

snip

Well, if the rules suddenly started changing arbitrarily, we'd notice.

Yes... I've gone over part of this in another post because I realised there was something slightly faulty with the statements I was making.

Nonetheless, irrespective of if we'd notice it or not, that doesn't strictly change whether or not science (or any other philosophical system) rests on any unsupported assumptions.

Just because it's reasonable and obvious, doesn't stop something being an assumption, after all.

(Then again, when you go down that road you realise that everything anyone has ever come up with rests on arbitrary, unprovable foundations if looked at closely enough. - In practice, actually looking at anything that closely is rather pointless... But as a principle it doesn't seem possible to avoid it.)

 

[Deacon Cole]

There is no scientific evidence for creation.

Apologetics is an aptly named discipline as it is nothing but making excuses.

 

[mrblakemiller]

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

 

[martin's a madman]

Creationism isn't science. It hasn't predicted or contributed anything to our understanding of the universe.

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

This paper claims a universe forming on its own is already falsified.

Is this a joke?


It also claims that abiogenesis is falsified.

It misuses the second law of thermodnymaics by not acknowledging that the Earth is not either a closed or isolated system.

It's using the bible, an unsupportable source as the basis for its understanding (specifically the flood), even when no scientific experiment has confirmed that this event occured. On the contrary, it has actually found that no flood did occur.

Did you expect that this horrid paper would blow anyone's minds? It's presenting arguments which have been defeated repeatedly.

 

[Jabberwock King]

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

Athe, god of Atheism.
For he is the god of nothing. The dark void that will devour all other gods and those who do not worship and fear him!
All hail Athe, for he does not exist!

Oh man, that was a good laugh. I tried chanting that last line enthusiastically in a high pitched voice, and it was perfect lolfuel... Wait a minute, what happens if you do worship and fear him?

Is this Captcha trying to tell me something?

 

[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.

 

[InevitableFate]

I have never seen any evidence for Creationism and am quite convinced there isn't any. When the arguments come around, all Creationists do is poke some holes in evolution, most of which don't actually exist and are purely a complete misunderstanding of the theory. If they do manage to get it right once and a while, THAT DOESN'T MATTER. Science knows evolution isn't perfect. Nor is Gravity, or just about anything. The whole point is that we try to find out solutions to those holes. They do NOT mean that the rest of the theory is wrong and it CERTAINLY doesn't magically mean Creationism is correct.

Critisisms of something else is not evidence.