Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 438,383 views
03R1
Do you forget which side of the fence I'm on. I'm not the one with the problem. When I get to heaven Jesus will pat me on the back and tell me nice try! When you get there all we will here is...but...but...we had fossils!

Not the problem he was talking about... and you're dodging the discussion at this point. Seriously, ask yourself how the above statement helps this discussion. Does it answer any of the questions we've posed to you? Does it seek to clarify your position or get us to clarify ours? No. It's just a nice little "you'll see" statement that helps you feel better in the face of a well reasoned argument from your opponents.

God created a living breathing earth you silly boy!

I wasn't trying to claim that the earth isn't dynamic, and neither was Famine. We were explaining why it can be difficult and sometimes impossible to find fossils. Especially really old ones. That being said, if this is the level of quality I can expect from you on this discussion, I don't see any point.
 
Edit: Ah, I see.

So you don't accept that the crust of the planet moves around on tectonic plates, I guess?



I always thought they were German those plates.....thanks for clearing that up for me .


Not to mention dear boy, that the Earths surface , thats holds fossils is often either underwater and not accessable and or buried under layers of soil, or due to volcanic activity or under tons and miles of ICE.

The Earth itself is a dynamic , ever changing , somewhat round thing , hanging in space at the wim of Odin and Thor anyway. When they get bored watch out...they play hide the fossils !
 
They are well crafted, and move with a ruthless, inevitable efficiency. The only thing missing is the I-Drive...

03R1 - Is your position really, truly so weak that you must evade even the simplest questions by darting into the future?
 
HOOOLD EVERY THING HERE A MINUTE. between famine, duke and danoff...I don't think you are paying attention to who i am replying to. You guys are saying that I claim that you said something...which in point I was responding to the other. I certainly am not trying to put any words in anyones mouth. It's not easy to keep up with you all.
 
Because they don't want their work to be discredited by scientists that come after them... like in the example you give below.

Not a good enough 'control' for me.

danoff
They do their best. Sometimes they get it wrong, but eventually someone looking to make a name for themselves and land a research grant will come along and debunk.

No one is doubting a scientists efforts being genuine or lacking in good intension.
 
What kills me is some of the things we are discussing I was taught in the sixth grade or sooner. Not the God stuff that came in catholic school and sunday school...but even in CATHOLIC school they taught us evolutionary biology....how to make flowers of all one color , not to mention they also taught us about the fossil record and scientific method. Then I went to Religion class and tthey taught me religion.

What PUZZLES the crap out of me is ...when did it change ?

Its like the world went insane . It mutated ......badly.


@Famine I wonder were they hid the paddle shift ?
 
How would you propose to "control" it then?

Oh, how about 300 different archaeologists look at the fossils independently and see if they ALL come to the same conclusion before the puzzle is put together.

What happens today in simple terms is:

"Look at what I found and how I arranged it, this is what I think it is....."

And the scientific community scrutinizes it.

Of course this is just what I gather from watching different documentary's. Maybe things are done more to the scientific method. *shrugs* Not sure.
 

So you don't accept that the crust of the planet moves around on tectonic plates, I guess?

See...I am hip to your evil ways! Look how fast you moved back down the road of not the topic of this thread. Watch out science boy! I am on to you!
 
See...I am hip to your evil ways! Look how fast you moved back down the road of not the topic of this thread. Watch out science boy! I am on to you!

How mountains form and expose fossils is somehow not the focus of this thread , or is off topic ?
 
Oh, how about 300 different archaeologists look at the fossils independently and see if they ALL come to the same conclusion before the puzzle is put together.

That's basically what happens, except they look at different fossils typically, or they collectively look at one as a team to try to figure out what's going on.

Pako
"Look at what I found and how I arranged it, this is what I think it is....."

And the scientific community scrutinizes it.

That too. Some scientists will come up with other fossils and say "Maybe that's what YOU think it is, but look what I found. That totally disproves your theory. Here's what I think is going on." This keeps happening until there's a ton of evidence out there and it all has to be taken into account when generating theories. In this way, theories are constantly refined and generate more and more evidence.

See...I am hip to your evil ways! Look how fast you moved back down the road of not the topic of this thread. Watch out science boy! I am on to you!

It's on topic.
 
hey engineer boy go figure out the shear force needed to cut through a w 8 beam.

leave the dry remarks to the experts.
 
See...I am hip to your evil ways! Look how fast you moved back down the road of not the topic of this thread. Watch out science boy! I am on to you!

Yeeeeeees... quite.

The notion of plate tectonics is fundamentally intertwined with the notion that fossils can go missing - by moving somewhere else. This makes it quite unlikely to have a totally contiguous fossil record. Your response earlier indicated that you didn't accept that the crust moved around, so didn't accept that crust movement caused volcanoes, earthquakes and mountains, and so can't accept that dead animals from millions of years ago would move.

Is this an accurate summary of your position or not?
 
Yeeeeeees... quite.

The notion of plate tectonics is fundamentally intertwined with the notion that fossils can go missing - by moving somewhere else. This makes it quite unlikely to have a totally contiguous fossil record. Your response earlier indicated that you didn't accept that the crust moved around, so didn't accept that crust movement caused volcanoes, earthquakes and mountains, and so can't accept that dead animals from millions of years ago would move.

Is this an accurate summary of your position or not?


Say that again in english .
 
Yeeeeeees... quite.

The notion of plate tectonics is fundamentally intertwined with the notion that fossils can go missing - by moving somewhere else. This makes it quite unlikely to have a totally contiguous fossil record. Your response earlier indicated that you didn't accept that the crust moved around, so didn't accept that crust movement caused volcanoes, earthquakes and mountains, and so can't accept that dead animals from millions of years ago would move.

Is this an accurate summary of your position or not?

Ok Ok...I will voluntarily fall in your trap.:scared:

No it is not my position...In fact I am making a trip to Hawaii in december to see first hand how beautiful mother nature is, lava flows and all! I completely agree with you about how the earths crust moves and even that plenty of fossils have been destroyed by such acts of nature. The crust recycling commet was in response to a comment danoff made not you.

This would be a good time to present my only beef with the bible? Time...I will say that I don't think it is an acturate judge of how long we have been here. Since I live in colorado, I see grand mountains and it would make sense that plate tectonics could be involved in helping that along.
 
Ok Ok...I will voluntarily fall in your trap.:scared:

No it is not my position...In fact I am making a trip to Hawaii in december to see first had how beautiful mother nature is, lava flows and all! I completely agree with you about how the earths crust moves and even that plenty of fossils have been destroyed by such acts of nature. The crust recycling commet was in response to a comment danoff made not you?

This would be a good time to present my only beef with the bible? Time...I will say that I don't think it is an acturate judge of how long we have been here. Since I live in colorado, I see grand mountains and it would make sense that plate tectonics could be involved in helping that along.

Aaaaahhh... There's a thinker in there somewhere. Good.

There is no requirement to throw away your faith once you step into here. It doesn't make much difference to me what you believe or why (and nor should it matter to you what I believe - or not - and why). But clear thinking is good - and it's perfectly possible to be a believer in any given religion and think clearly.

I'm not trying to trap you in any way - just to get that brain working... And both danoff and I commented on the live nature of our crust - danoff in relation to crust recycling, and me with reference to plate movement and fossil location.
 
I too am seeing the wise ways of swift, ledhed. famine and danoff will pull a person in two directions until he has been broken.
 
This would be a good time to present my only beef with the bible? Time...I will say that I don't think it is an acturate judge of how long we have been here. Since I live in colorado, I see grand mountains and it would make sense that plate tectonics could be involved in helping that along.

That's good to see. I would suggest to you that you not take the bible too literally with respect to the creation of the Earth. Swift would disagree with me on that point, but I think there is room for science and religion to coexist. If you don't take the creation of the Earth literally, you don't have to take the creation of man literally either.

Perhaps God set all of it in motion in the beginning... knowing that evolution would form man, knowing that gravity would form planets. Just like you see the forces of nature working over long periods of time to create mountains, biologists see the forces of nature working over long periods of time to create species. But that doesn't have to mean God doesn't exist (though I personally don't believe in God), it can simply mean that God didn't literally create woman from a spare rib and some dust.

Just something to think about.
 
Ok Ok...I will voluntarily fall in your trap.:scared:

No it is not my position...In fact I am making a trip to Hawaii in december to see first hand how beautiful mother nature is, lava flows and all! I completely agree with you about how the earths crust moves and even that plenty of fossils have been destroyed by such acts of nature. The crust recycling commet was in response to a comment danoff made not you.

This would be a good time to present my only beef with the bible? Time...I will say that I don't think it is an acturate judge of how long we have been here. Since I live in colorado, I see grand mountains and it would make sense that plate tectonics could be involved in helping that along.

And tons more are exposed when the earth thrust them back up , so we are always finding new and interesting sites.
 
Do you forget which side of the fence I'm on. I'm not the one with the problem. When I get to heaven Jesus will pat me on the back and tell me nice try! When you get there all we will here is...but...but...we had fossils!

In my Bible Jesus does not appear until about 40 books AFTER creation.



God created a living breathing earth you silly boy!

One where the conditions for evolutionary change exist.

As the Earth changes, its occupants must also. Fossil jungles in the baked hard earth under the desert, marine fossils in the mountains of the American Southwest. It's not a generational thing; no animal has babies that are another species, which is what you're asking us to show you. We can't, and we never expected to able to.

The species itself changes over time (an IMMENSE amount of time) through tiny developments. Perhaps an animal has to reach for its food, so babies that grow tall survive more often. In 20 or 30 generations you have an animal that's exactly the same, only a couple of inches taller on average. Now they've moved from a savannah setting to more heavily forested area, and those babies of a certain color skin (or fur or scale or feather) survive more often, and soon you have almost the exact same animal, but a different color. Keep doing those tiny little changes over those tens and hundreds of generations, and soon the animal has no comparison to your starting point. There's no instant in time that you can point to and say, "This animal was podunkus minimalus and this animal is podunkus giganticus, but if you take one of the earlier ones and one of the later ones (enough later) you have a different creature, and one that cannot interbreed with the other; it's changed too much.

In a bifurcation, like the mysterious timeline you and "Earth" seem to have so much trouble with, you have a creature that follows two separate paths of development. One group goes one direction (perhaps literally, travelling one way through its habitat) and another group goes another direction, their descendants being "siblings" in the order of species. Such a bifurcation separates the ancestors of cats and dogs from each other. The fact that you asked for a "catdog" shows how little you understand what's happening here.

And don't confuse breeds with species. German Shepherds and Pomeranians are the same species. They can mate and produce offspring. Persians and Siamese are the same species also. Persians and Poms? No. But you must recognize the canine-ness of wolves, hyenas, and domestic dogs, and you must recognize the feline-ness of lions, tigers, and the domestic cat. There is evidence suggesting that domestic dogs developed as a species from early man's domestication of asian gray wolves. The traits became separate enough from wolves that dogs became a separate species. Please take a look at what that means: Dogs are a YOUNGER species than man. They owe their very existance as a species to the meddling of man, and the convenience he found in taming the wolf for help in hunting and guarding his homes.
 
I have a question.

How can God not be a scientific possiblity but space aliens can be 'a very plausible' possibility?

Having gone to bed some 8hrs ago i wake to find a 🤬 amount of new posts. Having dilligently read through them (great posts, Famine, Danoff and wfooshee) i saw that this question was not answered.

As Famine/Danoff or co said earlier we are proof that aliens are very plausible to exist, actuallly i think its almost a garuntee? Other lifeforms are possible because we exist. Because we exist we have shown it is completely possible for a planet to have a lifeform evolve and come to exist giving the right circumstances. Now also given how big space is (its just to big for anyone to comphrehend) the chance of that exact situation happening again is almost garunteed.

Plus we cannot disprove god or prove god exists. Ive never seen Famine/Danoff and co say GOD DOES NOT EXIST, in fact ive seen them say many times that its entirely plausiable that god created the chain reaction of chemicals and universe etc that has evolved into what it is today.

PS, i know its missing many big words and fancy phrases but bear with me.
 
That's good to see. I would suggest to you that you not take the bible too literally with respect to the creation of the Earth. Swift would disagree with me on that point, but I think there is room for science and religion to coexist. If you don't take the creation of the Earth literally, you don't have to take the creation of man literally either.

Perhaps God set all of it in motion in the beginning... knowing that evolution would form man, knowing that gravity would form planets. Just like you see the forces of nature working over long periods of time to create mountains, biologists see the forces of nature working over long periods of time to create species. But that doesn't have to mean God doesn't exist (though I personally don't believe in God), it can simply mean that God didn't literally create woman from a spare rib and some dust.

Just something to think about.

The very first few days I posted in here I was trying going down the creator road. Going as far back as a creator could have created the matter use in the big bang theory. I was told literally that I was talking too much about the cosmos and that should be done in another thread. I wanted to see what you guys thought about A creator...maybe even one that created the big bang. It didn't seem to popular then, but now its ok to think about?! Sometimes you guys are very temperamental
 
In my Bible Jesus does not appear until about 40 books AFTER creation.

This has nothing to do with my post

One where the conditions for evolutionary change exist.

As the Earth changes, its occupants must also. Fossil jungles in the baked hard earth under the desert, marine fossils in the mountains of the American Southwest. It's not a generational thing; no animal has babies that are another species, which is what you're asking us to show you. We can't, and we never expected to able to.

No thats not what I was asking for but thanks for paying attention.

The species itself changes over time (an IMMENSE amount of time) through tiny developments. Perhaps an animal has to reach for its food, so babies that grow tall survive more often. In 20 or 30 generations you have an animal that's exactly the same, only a couple of inches taller on average. Now they've moved from a savannah setting to more heavily forested area, and those babies of a certain color skin (or fur or scale or feather) survive more often, and soon you have almost the exact same animal, but a different color. Keep doing those tiny little changes over those tens and hundreds of generations, and soon the animal has no comparison to your starting point. There's no instant in time that you can point to and say, "This animal was podunkus minimalus and this animal is podunkus giganticus, but if you take one of the earlier ones and one of the later ones (enough later) you have a different creature, and one that cannot interbreed with the other; it's changed too much.

Thats all interspecies and I agree with you on that one...as I have said before!

In a bifurcation, like the mysterious timeline you and "Earth" seem to have so much trouble with, you have a creature that follows two separate paths of development. One group goes one direction (perhaps literally, travelling one way through its habitat) and another group goes another direction, their descendants being "siblings" in the order of species. Such a bifurcation separates the ancestors of cats and dogs from each other. The fact that you asked for a "catdog" shows how little you understand what's happening here.

This is a thoery you have. You don't KNOW how they traveled. You will only understand by the fossils that you find. Think I am wrong about that? Just wait until the next fossil is found that nobody has seen before. Then you will have to change your theory again.

And don't confuse breeds with species. German Shepherds and Pomeranians are the same species. They can mate and produce offspring. Persians and Siamese are the same species also. Persians and Poms? No. But you must recognize the canine-ness of wolves, hyenas, and domestic dogs, and you must recognize the feline-ness of lions, tigers, and the domestic cat. There is evidence suggesting that domestic dogs developed as a species from early man's domestication of asian gray wolves. The traits became separate enough from wolves that dogs became a separate species. Please take a look at what that means: Dogs are a YOUNGER species than man. They owe their very existance as a species to the meddling of man, and the convenience he found in taming the wolf for help in hunting and guarding his homes.

Please read my posts more closely. I completely explained how within species you can have many changes over time.
 
Oh, how about 300 different archaeologists look at the fossils independently and see if they ALL come to the same conclusion before the puzzle is put together.

What happens today in simple terms is:

"Look at what I found and how I arranged it, this is what I think it is....."

And the scientific community scrutinizes it.

Of course this is just what I gather from watching different documentary's. Maybe things are done more to the scientific method. *shrugs* Not sure.
I really don't understand how that's fundamentally different. The way it works is this: one scientist finds a fossil, and studies it. He talks it over with his colleagues, his mentors, and his grad students. They give their opinions; he finalizes his theory, and publishes it.

Then every other scientist in his field tries to find holes in the theory, or see how it relates to their own work, and generally critiques the validity and merit of the theory. Any errors or over-assumptions are pointed out in letters and response papers, which get published in the same or similar journals. So the theory is put out to the scientific public; the public weighs and measures it, and the original scientist incorporates that commentary into a refined version.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you proposing that a large number of scientists should all, in a vacuum, come to exactly the same conclusion about the fossil in question before any theory is allowed to be published?

Imagine if that standard was applied to Biblical scholars - nobody would ever publish anything.
 
The very first few days I posted in here I was trying going down the creator road. Going as far back as a creator could have created the matter use in the big bang theory. I was told literally that I was talking too much about the cosmos and that should be done in another thread. I wanted to see what you guys thought about A creator...maybe even one that created the big bang. It didn't seem to popular then, but now its ok to think about?! Sometimes you guys are very temperamental

This thread is about Creation and Evolution. If you believe evolution, you can still believe in God. That's all I was saying. But as far is this thread is concerned, that's the equivalent of bowing out of that side of the debate.

I don't believe in any creator of any sort. I see no evidence for one so far. The only thing that even comes close to evidence is the existence of reality - but that could still have many explanations, some of which don't involve a creator. Plus, ascribing the creation of reality to a creator doesn't solve the fundamental question of "why is there anything at all (creator included)".

However, for the purposes of this thread, the folks arguing for evolution don't necessarily disbelieve in God. Some of them may be quite religious. They just don't believe God created man directly from dirt.
 
This thread is about Creation and Evolution. If you believe evolution, you can still believe in God. That's all I was saying. But as far is this thread is concerned, that's the equivalent of bowing out of that side of the debate.

I am certainly not bowing out of anything. I am struggling with the "rules" of staying on topic. I haven't figured out how wide my scope of rebuts can be with out be accused of straying. That also brings up the other accusations that some of my arguments are quote "weak". Give me a break here I am trying to beat you literally at your own game. If it is weak to you, it is because two of you are in here because your lifes work is very near to the thread topic. If it is weak then I will try to better inform my argument to meet the standards that you have worked many years to achieve.
 
I am certainly not bowing out of anything. I am struggling with the "rules" of staying on topic. I haven't figured out how wide my scope of rebuts can be with out be accused of straying.
There aren't real rules of staying on-topic per se. If you can make an argument or a point relevent to the discussion, that's fine. The main thing is to be sure that you are not using the side-topic to distract attention from a question you are avoiding. That's why you were 'accused' of bing off-topic before: when you didn't want to answer a question, you sometimes would send the discussion off in a new direction. That's not kosher.
 
. . . that some of my arguments are quote "weak". Give me a break here I am trying to beat you literally at your own game. If it is weak to you, it is because two of you are in here because your lifes work is very near to the thread topic. If it is weak then I will try to better inform my argument to meet the standards that you have worked many years to achieve.

It's weak because all you have to say is "This is what I know to be true" based on faith alone. Yes, that's the definition of faith, belief without evidence, but it doesn't "prove" anything other than your willingness to accept without question what you've been brought up to believe. There's nothing wrong with questioning it. Question it with your family, your pastor, your teachers.

Thats all interspecies and I agree with you on that one...as I have said before!

Now I'm confiused. I had just outlined the process of a species changing to another through an evolutionary process, something you've defied all along, and yet you say you agree, as you've said all along? What does "That's all interspecies" mean, anyway?

This has nothing to do with my post

Jesus is not part of the Creation story, so why would He be the one patting you on the back about it?
 
I really don't understand how that's fundamentally different. The way it works is this: one scientist finds a fossil, and studies it. He talks it over with his colleagues, his mentors, and his grad students. They give their opinions; he finalizes his theory, and publishes it.

Then every other scientist in his field tries to find holes in the theory, or see how it relates to their own work, and generally critiques the validity and merit of the theory. Any errors or over-assumptions are pointed out in letters and response papers, which get published in the same or similar journals. So the theory is put out to the scientific public; the public weighs and measures it, and the original scientist incorporates that commentary into a refined version.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you proposing that a large number of scientists should all, in a vacuum, come to exactly the same conclusion about the fossil in question before any theory is allowed to be published?

Imagine if that standard was applied to Biblical scholars - nobody would ever publish anything.

The only thing I'm "getting at" is that archaeologists looking for a missing link are going to be biased. Before any bones were found, they already knew what they wanted to find. I'm not saying this is a bad thing or a good thing, it's just the way it works, heck it gives them a purpose and direction I'm sure.

From what I understand, this type of controlled environment was used in the translations of the bible from it's original dialect to modern languages although the process was a bit different. Scholars were given only segments of text to translate so that opinions or pre-conceived notions would not be passed into the translation.

The original authors of the text of the Bible covers 40 different individuals and written over a period of 1400-1800 years.
 
Back