Poll: Evolution vs Creationism NO FLAMEWARS PLEASE

[macapus]

Why does everyone who supports evolutionism say that there is this "cold hard proof?" There is no proof except for fossils, which telll us that yes, species can change over time, but what created the first living organism. What created the event that created earth. What is the universe expanding into. Why can't do certain parts of our solar system act irregularily. Why can't we just accept the fact that evolutionism explains why we have ears and creationism explains why we are alive. As for believing one and believing another, BOTH HAVE LARGE GAPING HOLES IN THEIR THERIES. BOTH do not have good supporting evidence. I am so sick of the little dumbass kids who go FOSSILS EXIST SO GOD CAN'T! Evolutionism is not fully proven, just more proven than creationism. Creationism is flawed but it answers all the people's questions, abeit in an odd way. Evolutionism is sound on the theory of earth based evolution, but anything else and it fails miserably for the same reason that creationism falters NO EVIDENCE. Both can be blindly supported. I honestly believe evolutionism until I wonder how all of this came to be. They are not to different mindsets. You can be creationists and evolutionist. Or agnostic. It's like asking "Democrat or Muslim, which one is better?

Agnosticism- The belief that the existence of a god can be neither proven or disproven.

 

[Captain Blackout]

/facepalm

Having stated I'm clearly against biblical literalism I feel the need to point some other things out:

1) There are plenty who consider themselves creationists, some of them not Christian. Mystical Taoism comes to mind quickly.

2) To the one who said everything has to come from something: Explain virtual particles!

3) Belief in evolution does NOT equate to disbelief in God. Choosing to be an atheist is a separate choice.

4) Why must damn near every atheist on the escapist assume that because I believe in God, I need to be scolded for being fundamentalist Christian? I mean, really? Hell, my ontology includes the existence of Harry Potter but that doesn't mean I worship him! (And before you all creep out because I believe in the factual existence of fictional characters keep in mind my ontology is a complicated one you don't really understand and it started with realizing the muppets are real. Now you may creep out)

Presenting ones own views is a brilliant thing to do here. Making horrid assumptions about the beliefs of others is a brilliant way to start the flamewar we are so far avoiding.

 

[macapus]

/facepalm

Having stated I'm clearly against biblical literalism I feel the need to point some other things out:

1) There are plenty who consider themselves creationists, some of them not Christian. Mystical Taoism comes to mind quickly.

2) To the one who said everything has to come from something: Explain virtual particles!

3) Belief in evolution does NOT equate to disbelief in God. Choosing to be an atheist is a separate choice.

4) Why must damn near every atheist on the escapist assume that because I believe in God, I need to be scolded for being fundamentalist Christian? I mean, really? Hell, my ontology includes the existence of Harry Potter but that doesn't mean I worship him! (And before you all creep out because I believe in the factual existence of fictional characters keep in mind my ontology is a complicated one you don't really understand and it started with realizing the muppets are real. Now you may creep out)

Presenting ones own views is a brilliant thing to do here. Making horrid assumptions about the beliefs of others is a brilliant way to start the flamewar we are so far avoiding.

Thank you. And making overstereotyped rationalizations when you don't understand your own opinion is just being a dumbass etc(posting "I CAME FROM A MONKEY SO GOD CAN'T EXIST AND THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO FLAWS IN EVOLUTIONISM). Don't be a dumbass, actually back your posts up.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Thank you. And making overstereotyped rationalizations when you don't understand your own opinion is just being a dumbass etc(posting "I CAME FROM A MONKEY SO GOD CAN'T EXIST AND THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO FLAWS IN EVOLUTIONISM). Don't be a dumbass, actually back your posts up.

* he slowly raises his head from his hands after a double facepalm *

Macapus, you and I are on very different sides of this discussion.

1) Creationism was NEVER proposed as a way to explain the holes in evolution with one exception: believers in some form of intelligent design who co-opted other's ideas BADLY in an attempt to support their own belief in God. I strongly believe we will come to a near complete understanding of evolution to the point of being able to manipulate on a fine scale, (as opposed to the macroscopic scale we use now with methods such as cross-breeding.)
2) There are GOBS of evidence for evolution other than fossils. The works of Christian monk Mendel come to mind.
3) The planet earth that we all live on (well, most of us) was created as matter coalesced while the proto-solar system slowed down after the sun began it's life as a star.
4) No parts of our solar system act "irregularly", depending on what you mean by that. All its part act as predicted by the laws discovered by Newton, with refinements by Einstein and others. Just because we can't/haven't seen all the bodies in it doesn't mean they aren't there doing their jobs.
5) Your comments would do better with some grammar. Be careful calling others dumbass when your writing is in need of as much help as it appears to need.

I could list more but this will do well. Be very careful quoting me as support unless you know I'm on your side.

 

[lenin_117]

This thread isn't locked yet? Woah... Shame more creationists didn't come forward.

Thank you. And making overstereotyped rationalizations when you don't understand your own opinion is just being a dumbass etc(posting "I CAME FROM A MONKEY SO GOD CAN'T EXIST AND THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO FLAWS IN EVOLUTIONISM). Don't be a dumbass, actually back your posts up.

* he slowly raises his head from his hands after a double facepalm *

Macapus, you and I are on very different sides of this discussion.

1) Creationism was NEVER proposed as a way to explain the holes in evolution with one exception: believers in some form of intelligent design who co-opted other's ideas BADLY in an attempt to support their own belief in God. I strongly believe we will come to a near complete understanding of evolution to the point of being able to manipulate on a fine scale, (as opposed to the macroscopic scale we use now with methods such as cross-breeding.)
2) There are GOBS of evidence for evolution other than fossils. The works of Christian monk Mendel come to mind.
3) The planet earth that we all live on (well, most of us) was created as matter coalesced while the proto-solar system slowed down after the sun began it's life as a star.
4) No parts of our solar system act "irregularly", depending on what you mean by that. All its part act as predicted by the laws discovered by Newton, with refinements by Einstein and others. Just because we can't/haven't seen all the bodies in it doesn't mean they aren't there doing their jobs.
5) Your comments would do better with some grammar. Be careful calling others dumbass when your writing is in need of as much help as it appears to need.

I could list more but this will do well. Be very careful quoting me as support unless you know I'm on your side.

1)Your right, creationism wasn't made to explain the holes in evolution. It predates evolution by hundreds of years.

2)There are GOBS of evidence is there? A name is not evidence. If there's evidence, then show us.

3)Yeah, that or God made it.

4)Well IDK what macapus meant by that but besides Pluto becoming a planet then not (Majic!) there might be something you may not know.

5)The post wasn't riddled with grammatical errors. Not anything worth pointing out. And if you do have more to list then that should have been #5 because it looks like you're stretching it.

 

[Captain Blackout]

1)Your right, creationism wasn't made to explain the holes in evolution. It predates evolution by hundreds of years.
2)There are GOBS of evidence is there? A name is not evidence. If there's evidence, then show us.
3)Yeah, that or God made it.
4)Well IDK what macapus meant by that but besides Pluto becoming a planet then not (Majic!) there might be something you may not know.
5)The post wasn't riddled with grammatical errors. Not anything worth pointing out. And if you do have more to list then that should have been #5 because it looks like you're stretching it.

2) Mendel, Christian monk who discovered some of the earliest laws of genetics through experiments in cross breeding. If evolution didn't exist cross breeding wouldn't work. Both processes work by the same basic functions. The name was so those who were interested could do their own homework (there's a bloody novel concept, do your homework before taking stabs at concepts you don't understand. Case in point coming up)

3) It is possible God "made" earth. It's possible the fossils were placed in order to test our faith. However if that's the case God is a liar in deed, an argument put forth by Origen (early father of the Catholic church). Furthermore we have ample evidence from astrophysics and cosmology regarding the origins of the solar system. We've seen stars in various stages of evolution and have a solid grasp of the basics of solar system formation from that angle. We've got an excellent understanding of the mathematics of gravity and have an excellent idea of how planets form. None of this is new. Saying God made earth is wonderfully poetic and is a concept I believe in but the process itself is well understood and not in question for anyone who is seriously working in astrophysics.

4) Pluto's status as a planet is a matter of definition, not of a change in state. It's a member of the Kuiper belt and as such many scientists are not comfortable with classifying it as a planet. No 'majic' needed. Technically I don't know what Macapus meant by "irregularities" in the solar system however the most often cited ones I hear about deal with motion of bodies not in accord with the laws of gravity. The simplest explanation (and the one that led to the discovery of many of the planets) is that there are unknown bodies affecting the motion of the bodies we see. This has happened so many times that every time an astrophysicist sees this phenomena they start looking for new bodies. To the best of my knowledge every recent example of this phenomena has followed the same pattern.

5) Go back and read his earlier posts. They have some very ugly grammatical moments in them. No stretching at all. When it's clear a poster hasn't bothered to do their homework and is misrepresenting science I will quickly become the grammar nazi and nail them for all of their errors. Teachers the planet over use this method as a teaching tool for students who clearly need to work harder on their writings.

Look, the bottom line is this:
Strict Christian biblical creationism might be true but if it is, it flies in the face of the following scientific disciplines: Evolution, biology, organic chemistry, geology, astrophysics, cosmology, climatology, hydrology, particle physics, this list goes on and possibly includes every scientific discipline. If creationism is true then the observable universe has been created in such a way as to look completely natural with a completely different history. Is God so capricious, arbitrary and malicious as to do this to his children? I hope not. I maintain a strong faith in God and I do believe God is responsible for the universe. As a Taoist I do not for one moment believe in strict Christian creationism.

One last thing: Either do your own homework or I will simply start cutting and pasting entire Wikipedia entries and wall-o-text this thread into oblivion.