Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,234 views
- 13,911
- Adelaide
- Neomone
- 2,187
- Kansas City
- PsuPepperoni
I went to Catholic school starting from kindergarten, but I didn't meet a creationist until sophomore year of high school.
I asked her if her family believed in dinosaurs, and she said, after a pause, "I don't know."
When I met a second creationist, I had to ask the same question, and he told me there were dinosaurs in the Bible. I read a lot of the Bible in 13 years of Catholic school, but I can't recall the Psalm about Tyrannosaurus.
I asked her if her family believed in dinosaurs, and she said, after a pause, "I don't know."
When I met a second creationist, I had to ask the same question, and he told me there were dinosaurs in the Bible. I read a lot of the Bible in 13 years of Catholic school, but I can't recall the Psalm about Tyrannosaurus.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The Bible doesn't say a great deal about dinosaurs, but some Creationist literature/websites regarding dinosaurs are well worth a read, and most are guaranteed to really brighten up your day 👍. Once you learn to ignore the anti-scientific bile that pervades their every paragraph, it actually becomes quite entertaining to read, and it is good to know they are at least thinking about us evolutionists and our 'worldview' - constantly. In stark contrast, the actual scientific literature on dinosaurs doesn't mention God, the Bible, Adam, Eve, Noah, Jesus, Creation Week or one's 'worldview' anywhere - it is almost as if these things are considered irrelevant by the scientific community!! Of course, paleontology is hardly unique in this regard. A word of caution, however... you may find some of it a bit confusing, like how some creationists accept that the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods actually existed, while others (Young Earth creationists) don't. But hey, nobody said being a Creationist was easy!
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Two stories I find most amusing:
1) Dinosaurs never existed as living creatures; their bones were planted in the living stone by God in order to impress and frighten humans!
2) Dinosaurs existed, but not on the Earth as we know it; they were too large to move or lift their heads in the case of sauropods, and too heavy to fly in the case of pterosaurs!
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
I watched the whole thing, and I learned a LOT about YE creationist views. One thing I find astonishing is this distinction between observable science and "historical" science. That science is somehow different when it concerns itself with the past - especially a past that human beings weren't part of. For YE creationists to embrace science, and natural processes for current technology and somehow shut down when presented with the same scientific method and same natural processes about the past is quite remarkable.
Ham even said that YE creationists trust scientific processes into the future - just not backward into the past. That's an amazingly arbitrary distinction. It's quite telling that he finds natural processes to be reliable and interesting and worthy of study for current and future use, but when it comes to the past the answers they give are unusable because they don't agree with the bible. Suddenly natural processes aren't to be trusted, and we need to come up with other explanations no matter how magical or fantastic, and no matter the lack of evidence, because the bible is the starting point for understanding the past.
Nye is absolutely correct when he says that seeing the past through the lense of the biblical account will hurt innovation. Ham points to researchers in some fields producing breakthroughs and still being YE creationists. But how do you create a breakthrough in nuclear physics when you refuse to understand radioactive decay? How do you create a breakthrough in geology when you have to START with the assumption that the layers you're looking at were laid down in 6000 years or less (probably 4000 because of Noah)? It's against everything about science to start with a premise like YE creationism and shoehorn evidence in around that, and it's a contradictory worldview to do that for the past, and yet embrace the full scientific process with the present.
Ham even said that YE creationists trust scientific processes into the future - just not backward into the past. That's an amazingly arbitrary distinction. It's quite telling that he finds natural processes to be reliable and interesting and worthy of study for current and future use, but when it comes to the past the answers they give are unusable because they don't agree with the bible. Suddenly natural processes aren't to be trusted, and we need to come up with other explanations no matter how magical or fantastic, and no matter the lack of evidence, because the bible is the starting point for understanding the past.
Nye is absolutely correct when he says that seeing the past through the lense of the biblical account will hurt innovation. Ham points to researchers in some fields producing breakthroughs and still being YE creationists. But how do you create a breakthrough in nuclear physics when you refuse to understand radioactive decay? How do you create a breakthrough in geology when you have to START with the assumption that the layers you're looking at were laid down in 6000 years or less (probably 4000 because of Noah)? It's against everything about science to start with a premise like YE creationism and shoehorn evidence in around that, and it's a contradictory worldview to do that for the past, and yet embrace the full scientific process with the present.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?bffb
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. No. Look up what the 2nd Law actually applies to.
5. It's "there ". And the sun sets because the earth spins on its axis relative to it.
6. They don't (see #4). And look them up to see what they actually apply to.
7. What about them...?
8. Why does there need to be objective meaning in life? That aside, how is religion - which is by definition SUBJECTIVE - going to supply it?
9. Yep. How did your God originate - by refusing to answer how He originated?
10. I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. SHE said you're an idiot.
11. They don't. Both are equally possible, and both are equally unlikely.
12. You absolutely don't understand the concept of evolution. But you are kind of cute, which means you'll probably get to procreate anyway. Damn.
13. It proves that metamorphosis is a viable adaptation strategy for some species.
14. A) You don't understand the word "theory". Fortunately, the people who teach evolutionary theory do. B) Because all the physical evidence supports it.
15. And YOU don't even understand the word "science". Because everything you say it isn't is what it is.
16. Not sure what you mean. Natural selection increases the percentage of "good" genetic information by honing away the "bad", but it is always surrounded by a huge amount of genetic junk information which is neither good nor bad.
17. Why would I need a "purpose" to be here? Why do you need a purpose - isn't the sheer joy of being alive ENOUGH for you?
18. We've only found 1 "Lucy" because she lived millions of years ago and just happened to die in a place where her remains were preserved enough to study. We've found thousands, if not 10s of thousands, of other homind fossils. And, like #12, you also don't understand the concept of evolution. Maybe you should hook up. Just don't have any kids, please.
19. I don't "believe" in the Big Bang, so I don't need any "faith". There are a number of Big Bang theory variations that fit the available evidence in differing ways - AND I'M OK WITH THAT. That's how science works.
20. Because all of the available evidence points to a natural origin, not a supernatural Creation. Why isn't that even MORE amazing to you? I'm amazed by it. I think it's really cool.
21. Where did God come from? I'm OK with not understanding the universe's origin yet. I'd rather have an incomplete but probable answer that meets the evidence. I'm not desperate to have AN ANSWER that isn't based on anything but the desire to have the question go away.
22. Surprise. Someone else who doesn't understand evolution. #12 can have her choice of mates. In answer to your stupid question: BECAUSE MONKEYS STILL ADAPT TO THEIR ECOLOGICAL NICHE WELL ENOUGH TO SURVIVE. And, you'll note, many species of monkey are dying out where they come into competition with humans.
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. No. Look up what the 2nd Law actually applies to.
5. It's "there ". And the sun sets because the earth spins on its axis relative to it.
6. They don't (see #4). And look them up to see what they actually apply to.
7. What about them...?
8. Why does there need to be objective meaning in life? That aside, how is religion - which is by definition SUBJECTIVE - going to supply it?
9. Yep. How did your God originate - by refusing to answer how He originated?
10. I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. SHE said you're an idiot.
11. They don't. Both are equally possible, and both are equally unlikely.
12. You absolutely don't understand the concept of evolution. But you are kind of cute, which means you'll probably get to procreate anyway. Damn.
13. It proves that metamorphosis is a viable adaptation strategy for some species.
14. A) You don't understand the word "theory". Fortunately, the people who teach evolutionary theory do. B) Because all the physical evidence supports it.
15. And YOU don't even understand the word "science". Because everything you say it isn't is what it is.
16. Not sure what you mean. Natural selection increases the percentage of "good" genetic information by honing away the "bad", but it is always surrounded by a huge amount of genetic junk information which is neither good nor bad.
17. Why would I need a "purpose" to be here? Why do you need a purpose - isn't the sheer joy of being alive ENOUGH for you?
18. We've only found 1 "Lucy" because she lived millions of years ago and just happened to die in a place where her remains were preserved enough to study. We've found thousands, if not 10s of thousands, of other homind fossils. And, like #12, you also don't understand the concept of evolution. Maybe you should hook up. Just don't have any kids, please.
19. I don't "believe" in the Big Bang, so I don't need any "faith". There are a number of Big Bang theory variations that fit the available evidence in differing ways - AND I'M OK WITH THAT. That's how science works.
20. Because all of the available evidence points to a natural origin, not a supernatural Creation. Why isn't that even MORE amazing to you? I'm amazed by it. I think it's really cool.
21. Where did God come from? I'm OK with not understanding the universe's origin yet. I'd rather have an incomplete but probable answer that meets the evidence. I'm not desperate to have AN ANSWER that isn't based on anything but the desire to have the question go away.
22. Surprise. Someone else who doesn't understand evolution. #12 can have her choice of mates. In answer to your stupid question: BECAUSE MONKEYS STILL ADAPT TO THEIR ECOLOGICAL NICHE WELL ENOUGH TO SURVIVE. And, you'll note, many species of monkey are dying out where they come into competition with humans.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
It's like saying you trust what a telescope shows you, but not a microscope. I don't know people can say stuff like this with a straight face. I understand - or at least accept that some people do - deciding to throw away rational logic and science because you want to follow a different system. But if you want to do that, why even try to enter the scientific arena at all? You're going to lose every fight before it begins.
- 2,187
- Kansas City
- PsuPepperoni
- 1,730
- Leeds
- mullac2k9
Some of their stupidity literally makes my brain hurt. I mean, please sit them down and explain what the word theory actually means in the scientific world before letting them do anything else with their lives. I think I need a moment.
Oh and that last guy, that smile on his face just says real life trolling... or at least I hope it does... people can't seriously think like that?
- 2,187
- Kansas City
- PsuPepperoni
If dogs were bred from wolves, why are there still wolves? Checkmate, Breedests.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
While I commend Bill Nye on his performance in the above debate, I'm one of those who don't think that debating Ken Ham is wise. Ken Ham cannot be reasoned with. As you can see/hear above, he openly admits to this, and fully endorses such an attitude. With any luck, Bill Nye may have succeeded in convincing some skeptics that creationism is not a valid explanation for the origins of our species, but I fear that the purpose of the debate lay elsewhere i.e. to give Ken Ham as wide an audience as possible. Losing a few supporters is totally worth it if in the process you massively grow your own audience.
I consider Ken Ham's behaviour - in deliberately disseminating known falsehoods and advocating a position of staunch opposition to reason and evidence - to be immoral, and he deserves to be ignored completely.
I consider Ken Ham's behaviour - in deliberately disseminating known falsehoods and advocating a position of staunch opposition to reason and evidence - to be immoral, and he deserves to be ignored completely.
- 1,722
- Sydney
- snakebacon97
Small groups of wolves were orphaned and domesticated by man (or nearby groups adapted to be friendlier to humans to ensure their own survival, that's the other theory) some time before 7000BCE, not every single wolf was wiped out and replaced by dogs, that's not how domestication works. Here's a wikipedia article about it.
- 2,187
- Kansas City
- PsuPepperoni
I was satirizing this:
Small groups of wolves were orphaned and domesticated by man (or nearby groups adapted to be friendlier to humans to ensure their own survival, that's the other theory) some time before 7000BCE, not every single wolf was wiped out and replaced by dogs, that's not how domestication works. Here's a wikipedia article about it.
Although nobody says we evolved from monkeys so maybe I need to make my post a bit more stupid to be an accurate satire.
- 1,722
- Sydney
- snakebacon97
Phew, you had me worried for a moment there
- 2,541
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
After also having watched the whole thing, I got the same impression. It was interesting to note how every argument from Bill just slid off Ken.He and his kind 'know' that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, so for every bit of hard evidence to the contrary, there must be a logical reason (logical in their eyes), like that 8 thousand year old tree, was of course created with so many rings. And to my knowledge they are the only ones that claim that nothing from the past can be proven. How convenient.
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
Rather than creation vs evolution I would like to see creation vs creation. Get a few different religious leaders together from different sects and let them debate about which version of events is true. After all, the scientists that I have seen debate such as Dawkins, Gould, Krauss, Tyson & others all debate on a level playing field. They have their evidence and it's used time and time again. When debating creationists or religious folk in general they all have different interpretations of what the religious texts say.
Last edited:
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
So would I! As far as I'm concerned the scientific community has its evidence, it can be viewed openly, tested and proven incorrect if the evidence presents itself.
We are having to debate numerous theologians all with varying versions. They can't all be right because they conflict so openly, not just through scripture but also through their interpretation of scripture. I'm quite serious when I say that the first debate that needs to be had is between all those different religions and different sects. Let them work on their unified theory and then we can debate.
Another thing that also grinds my gears is when scientific method is good enough to allow us to slingshot probes around space, develop thousands of chemicals and treatments that benefit us all but when it comes to scientific method being used to explain life it's suddenly not accurate enough.
