Creation vs. Evolution

[PS]

No, there's plenty of it. I just don't see how you can just discount over a hundred pages of posts without looking through them.




Please, for the sake of the length of this argument, don't answer questions with other rediciulous ones. It isn't going to win this debate. I haven't read anyone ask were God came from without the explicit purpose of pissing off Creationists.

Even still, we did answer correctly. We don't know, and for the foreseeable future, can never know.



The Flood is a legitimate point in your argument exposed to weakness. But you're question is mixing two different branches of science, biology and physics. It's unrelated to Evolution in the immediate sense.



Did I misspell something? I acknowledged that there are gaps in the fossil record. Every pro-evolutionist did. I know I'm also not the first to explain how those gaps appeared. We know the holes are there. We know that many fossils got wiped off the face of the earth. That's why there are gaps. Not all fossils survive. We make use of what we have.

Honestly, this has been said since the beginning of the thread. How did this even reach 100+pages?

Because he/they don't accept that a ****ing meteor obliterated half of it.

 

[ledhed]

Yeah, right. There's going to be scientific evidence for every single event in the bible. Right. Please, there isn't scientific evidence for half of the theory of evolution.

Your right there is not evidence for half ...there is evidence to support the whole theory ...thats why its called a "theory " and not a supposition or an allegory or a story or a bible .

"Theory ' according to wikkipedia;
In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations.

The term theoretical may be used to to describe a certain result that has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, but failed predictions do occur. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics, there can also be confirmed experimental results which are not yet explained by theory.

For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.

Unfortunately, the usage of the term is muddled by cases such as string theory and "theories of everything," each probably better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data, and is often a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.

Other claims such as Intelligent Design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience

Psuedoscience by wikkipedia;

Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific [1]. The standards determining such a distinction vary, but often include lack of empirical evidence, unfalsifiability, or failure to comply with scientific method or apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor. A number of attempts have been made to apply philosophical rigor to the notion with mixed results. These include Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability and the historiographical approach of Imre Lakatos in his Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Other historians and philosophers of science, chiefly Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend have argued, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, that a clear philosophical distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable.

The term "pseudoscience" often has negative connotations, implying generally that things so labeled are false and deceptive (though a strict interpretation of the term would not necessarily have it mean either). As such, those who are labelled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" almost always reject this classification, and often the distinction itself.

Some critics of pseudoscience consider some or all forms of pseudoscience to be harmless entertainment. Others, such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, consider all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their followers. These critics generally consider that advocacy of pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple naïveté about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial or political benefit.


There you go .

 

[code_kev]

Honestly, I'm getting really bored of the quesitons about the flood just like you're getting bored about my questions about where did it all come from.

There's a BIG difference proving there was a world wide flood a few thousand years ago and how the fricking Earth was created! A flood of that magnitude should be relativly easy to prove, ignoring ofc the fact that there isn't enough water on the Earth to do it.

Science isn't allways right, and no one here pretends that it is, but with the evidence as it is, you must understand why your argument is so weak. Evolution has been proved, it happens all around us, it's been shown in labs, fossil evidence backs it up (in both ground depths and dating methods), and it makes sense. It hasn't all been answered, it never will, but it's the best we have.

 

[PS]

pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple naïveté about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial or political benefit.

Oh. I see.

Well at least we have it in writing now.

 

[PS]

There's a BIG difference proving there was a world wide flood a few thousand years ago and how the fricking Earth was created!

Even if the Earth did flood, where would the water have gone? The entire climate of Earth would be screwed, with hurricanes and tropical storms all over.

 

[Swift]

No, there's plenty of it. I just don't see how you can just discount over a hundred pages of posts without looking through them.

I have and I've also acknowledged some of it.

Please, for the sake of the length of this argument, don't answer questions with other rediciulous ones. It isn't going to win this debate. I haven't read anyone ask were God came from without the explicit purpose of pissing off Creationists.

Even still, we did answer correctly. We don't know, and for the foreseeable future, can never know.

So saying you don't know let's the entire foundation of a theory off the hook? That sounds a lot like what you're saying I'm doing with creation.

The Flood is a legitimate point in your argument exposed to weakness. But you're question is mixing two different branches of science, biology and physics. It's unrelated to Evolution in the immediate sense.

Is it just me, or did the flood happen AFTER creation. So, we would've been fully evolved by then anyway. How is that even relevant, directly?

Did I misspell something? I acknowledged that there are gaps in the fossil record. Every pro-evolutionist did. I know I'm also not the first to explain how those gaps appeared. We know the holes are there. We know that many fossils got wiped off the face of the earth. That's why there are gaps. Not all fossils survive. We make use of what we have.

Honestly, this has been said since the beginning of the thread. How did this even reach 100+pages?

You didn't misspell a thing. My point is you only hear what you want to hear just as you claim I am doing. You're theory has no clue at all how things started and how big gaps in the fossil record that attempt to prove that theory. Now, you can say up to this point and all that. You can also rationalize the lack of data to your hearts content. But that doesn't make it automatically right.

You guys are treating evolutionary theory just like I'm treating creation. The problem is that creation isn't, I repeat isn't scientific in its nature. So you think you have all these holes in it. Well, you've got some huge ones in your theory there.

So, why has this gone to 100 pages? That’s easy. Science is limited as of right now, possibly forever in the view that we are talking and can't answer the big questions. The bible has the answers, if you accept them or not is your choice.

Did you not see the irony of my post?

Nope, I don't understand your sense of humour or take anything you post seriously since you told me not to.

 

[PS]

Nope, I don't understand your sense of humour or take anything you post seriously since you told me not to.

Oh, real mature. Let's just take it to the extreme then.


Do I have to explain EVERYTHING I say, or can you think about it first?

 

[(G)]

So saying you don't know let's the entire foundation of a theory off the hook?

WE DON'T KNOW.

Why is that hard to accept? As soon as physics has an answer for the origins of the universe (which isn't covered by Evolutionary theroy at all) we'll be the first to let you know.

Science is ever changing, adapting to new discoveries and data. WHICH MEANS IT WILL NEVER BE FINISHED.

Is it just me, or did the flood happen AFTER creation. So, we would've been fully evolved by then anyway. How is that even relevant, directly?

You didn't misspell a thing. My point is you only hear what you want to hear just as you claim I am doing. You're theory has no clue at all how things started and how big gaps in the fossil record that attempt to prove that theory. Now, you can say up to this point and all that. You can also rationalize the lack of data to your hearts content. But that doesn't make it automatically right.

Will getting EVERY SINGLE ORGAINSM EVER TO WALK THE EARTH convince you?

I still have yet to hear any convincing evidence for Creation. AT ALL.

Evolution theory isn't a theroy on all life on earth and how it started. It's about how it changed.

You guys are treating evolutionary theory just like I'm treating creation. The problem is that creation isn't, I repeat isn't scientific in its nature. So you think you have all these holes in it. Well, you've got some huge ones in your theory there.

If Creationism isn't a scientific theory, do NOT defend it as such.

It's absolutly infuriating to "debate" with someone who does not know what he's fighting against. To put it simply, know your enemy.

The bible has the answers, if you accept them or not is your choice.

Where do you pull this from?
The bible has answers on MORAL LIVING. Science is here to answer questions on the natural world. The bible has all these interesting stories to get people to read it.

 

[Swift]

WE DON'T KNOW.

Why is that hard to accept? As soon as physics has an answer for the origins of the universe (which isn't covered by Evolutionary theroy at all) we'll be the first to let you know.

Science is ever changing, adapting to new discoveries and data. WHICH MEANS IT WILL NEVER BE FINISHED.

I get every part of it. I just think that it's funny how you avoid the parts that have the ugly holes and go after the parts that have the fossils. BTW, I know that the evolutionary theory is the science of how life devoleped not how it began. However, since God didn't do anything according to your views, then life had to start somehow. And the ooze is the most well like theory so far.

Where do you pull this from?
The bible has answers on MORAL LIVING. Science is here to answer questions on the natural world. The bible has all these interesting stories to get people to read it.

You don't read the same bible that I read.

I do know my enemy. Infact I was not very long ago, a big proponent of evolution, the big bang, and all the rest of the theories scienctists try to use to explain the world. You know why? It's one very simple reason. I'll see if you can guess it. If not, I'll be happy to tell you.

 

[Danoff]

I want everyone to take note of this. He says "I don't know" Now, when I'm challenged with a question and say I don't know" I'm looked with no credit and a person that just believes in a book that was finished about 2000 years ago.

You say stop asking. Well then everyone else needs to stop asking "where God came from" Let's level the playing field.

That would be a level playing field. But when you ask where the laws of physics came from, it is fair to respond with "where did God come from."


So are we agreed on this whole "accident" thing? - that evolutionists don't believe that humanity arose by accident? That evolutionists instead think that intelligent life is the logical outcome of the laws of physics and nature of the universe?


Edit:

Stop asking where the universe came from? Then stop asking how Noah fit all the animals on the Ark.

That's not the same thing. You explainging how Noah fit all the animals on to the ark is parallel with us explaining parts of evolutionary theory. Besides, you shouldn't balk at this question. There is a simple answer from your end... it was a miracle.

See? Piece of cake.

 

[PS]

You didn't misspell a thing. My point is you only hear what you want to hear just as you claim I am doing. You're theory has no clue at all how things started and how big gaps in the fossil record that attempt to prove that theory. Now, you can say up to this point and all that. You can also rationalize the lack of data to your hearts content. But that doesn't make it automatically right.

The difference between evolutionists and creationists, is that evolutionists can accept that they're not always right. Our theories, however, unlike yours, are not subject to interpretation and have to be reviewed, tested, and analyzed to determine if they're viable, instead of making up an answer and preaching to everyone that they will be "saved" if they accept it. You've got a wonderfull system going, but like all fraudulant sytems, it will come to an end.

You guys are treating evolutionary theory just like I'm treating creation.

No we're not. We know it because it has evidence and facts to back it up, and the holes that you point out can be rationalyzed, unlike religion's "holes''.

The problem is that creation isn't, I repeat isn't scientific in its nature.

So how can you simply accept something just because someone tells you that it is? How can someone be so naive or ignorant?

So you think you have all these holes in it. Well, you've got some huge ones in your theory there.

And yours doesn't? You've attacked our "holes" because you can't challenge our data and the evidence we have which destroys all your biblical conjecture. I'm through playing, I'm not toying around anymore, and I'm getting fed up with dogmatic BS and childish antics. Either you can continue blatantly ignoring the facts that have been presented since the beginning of this thread, which have [in abundance] destroyed many of your points—or you can continue poking at us with your 10 foot stick and running away before we can retaliate—the choice is yours.

So, why has this gone to 100 pages? That’s easy. Science is limited as of right now, possibly forever in the view that we are talking and can't answer the big questions. The bible has the answers, if you accept them or not is your choice.

Science has been questioning religion since the dawn of time, and guess what? You don't like it. You never have. You're insecure in your thoguhts of the afterlife, so you have this to look forward. You just want some comfort or consolation in the fact that you're not going to rot into a pile of dirt consumed by maggots and worms that turn your body into their feces. Religion has unjustly persecuted questioners since it's invention, and blindly killed others for batting an eye. Well you can't do that anymore.

You're too afraid to admit that knowledge and fact is going to rise up and abolish religion. Sooner or later, truth and human rights and the freedom of decision always wins. Your days of telling others what is right and what is wrong will be over, and you will no longer have the same stranglehold on society that religion once did. The wars will end, your point will be gone. People will stop fighting in the streets because of what someone preaches, and you're just afraid of losing.

Your hypocrisy can no longer carry you above the truth.


Disclaimer:

I am not talking to a specific person, but to all religions as a whole.

 

[(G)]

I get every part of it. I just think that it's funny how you avoid the parts that have the ugly holes and go after the parts that have the fossils. BTW, I know that the evolutionary theory is the science of how life devoleped not how it began. However, since God didn't do anything according to your views, then life had to start somehow. And the ooze is the most well like theory so far.

There isn't a whole lot to dwell on with holes, you know. You don't know what such organisms are, what they looked like, peculiarities, etc.

There are separate hypothesis on how life started. (I know I'm gonna see that flawed amino acid experiment in your reply, I just know it.)

It's one very simple reason. I'll see if you can guess it. If not, I'll be happy to tell you.

You made my brain not work by having to clarify everything 4+ times. Tell me, because honestly I can't bother to guess.

EDITh, and PS - That was surpirisingly - alarmingly - fascist.

 

[code_kev]

I do know my enemy. Infact I was not very long ago, a big proponent of evolution, the big bang, and all the rest of the theories scienctists try to use to explain the world. You know why? It's one very simple reason. I'll see if you can guess it. If not, I'll be happy to tell you.

So you were brain washed? I just don't understand how you can believe science one minute, then turn into Ned Flanders.

 

[PS]

I do know my enemy. Infact I was not very long ago, a big proponent of evolution, the big bang, and all the rest of the theories scienctists try to use to explain the world. You know why? It's one very simple reason. I'll see if you can guess it. If not, I'll be happy to tell you.

It's their loophole: faith. That's the only plan and only failsafe they have, because they know that if they had to come up with the evidence, even with unlimited funding, they wouldn't be able to come up with it. They didn't even mention the existence of David's ossuary (which btw, was found to be a fake) which leads me to belive that they don't even know what they're following. It's the blind leading the blind.


And "Know[ing] your enemy" would probably be too associated with liberalism, so that goes right out the window. *

 

[Swift]

That would be a level playing field. But when you ask where the laws of physics came from, it is fair to respond with "where did God come from."


So are we agreed on this whole "accident" thing? - that evolutionists don't believe that humanity arose by accident? That evolutionists instead think that intelligent life is the logical outcome of the laws of physics and nature of the universe?

Honestly bud. I'm really having a hard time with that. I mean, if we look at it from that way. Things could've been very different if we were only about 5-10 million miles closer to the sun. It's just the fact that everything seemed to work out so well with no design, intellegence or forthought. It just exists because that's how nature works. That's my struggling point.

Oh, real mature. Let's just take it to the extreme then.


Do I have to explain EVERYTHING I say, or can you think about it first?

Do me a favor, don't act childish. I've called you on more then one thing that you've said in this and other threads. What was your response? "Don't take it seriously" or "I said that pretty loosely" Even after I busted you on the difference between the study of the origin of life and the evolution of life you didn't admit it.

So, I have chosen not to take anything you say in the opinions forum seriously since you obviously won't back up what you say unless there are others with you. I hope that doesn't offend you. I'm simply sick of taking your posts the wrong way. If you want to avoid my posting in the opinions forum, that's fine. As long as we keep the respect outside this paticular forum.

 

[PS]

There isn't a whole lot to dwell on with holes, you know. You don't know what such organisms are, what they looked like, peculiarities, etc.

There are separate hypothesis on how life started. (I know I'm gonna see that flawed amino acid experiment in your reply, I just know it.)



You made my brain not work by having to clarify everything 4+ times. Tell me, because honestly I can't bother to guess.

EDITh, and PS - That was surpirisingly - alarmingly - fascist.

Extremist, maybe, but fascist? Pfft, not likely. Fascism is a result of right-wing extremism, a trait more commonly associated with the religious. I'm not going to force my beliefs on them, but sooner or later, society will discover the truth and they won't be able to deny it any longer.

 

[PS]

Honestly bud. I'm really having a hard time with that. I mean, if we look at it from that way. Things could've been very different if we were only about 5-10 million miles closer to the sun. It's just the fact that everything seemed to work out so well with no design, intellegence or forthought. It just exists because that's how nature works. That's my struggling point.



Do me a favor, don't act childish. I've called you on more then one thing that you've said in this and other threads. What was your response? "Don't take it seriously" or "I said that pretty loosely" Even after I busted you on the difference between the study of the origin of life and the evolution of life you didn't admit it.

So, I have chosen not to take anything you say in the opinions forum seriously since you obviously won't back up what you say unless there are others with you. I hope that doesn't offend you. I'm simply sick of taking your posts the wrong way. If you want to avoid my posting in the opinions forum, that's fine. As long as we keep the respect outside this paticular forum.

How about I do you a favour, I'll put an asterisk ( * ) beside anything satirical or sarcastic?

 

[(G)]

No, it's pretty fascist. You don't have to be conservative to impose your views by force.

Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life. The definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism, however, fill entire bookshelves. There are clearly elements of both left and right ideology in the development of Fascism.

 

[PS]

Honestly bud. I'm really having a hard time with that. I mean, if we look at it from that way. Things could've been very different if we were only about 5-10 million miles closer to the sun. It's just the fact that everything seemed to work out so well with no design, intellegence or forthought. It just exists because that's how nature works. That's my struggling point.
.

But that's the beauty of it, there are millions of other planets out there just like ours. We simply realize the irony of it, others think we're special.

If we were on one of those other planets, someone would probably think we were special too. But remember-- we had to adapt to these conditions. If we couldn't, we wouldn't be here talking about them, and thus debating over it would be devoid of a point.

 

[PS]

No, it's pretty fascist. You don't have to be conservative to impose your views by force.

I'm not going to. I'm telling them what's going to happen.

Truth and rights eventually take care of themselves, that's why I don't have a problem with Bush anymore. He can't ban gays from getting married, because people's rights will eventually over-power influence. That's the way it always goes, just look at 4000 years of history.

 

[code_kev]

PS, you have a wonderful way with words. Just thought I'd say. Your also right, religion will slowly die away. It's allready happening in the UK.

Swift, lighten up. I personally like abit of humour in any topic regardless of what it's on.

 

[PS]

One of the perks of matter, is that it's always been.


And who said that the Creator has always been? Who proved that?

***********

Well, you didn't see the irony of my post, so I'm going to explain it.

Creationists say that "God" has always been, without offering any proof or otherwise substantial data.

I just said that the perks of matter is that it's always been, whilst offering no proof or otherwise substantial data.

See the irony?

 

[Swift]

PS, you have a wonderful way with words. Just thought I'd say. Your also right, religion will slowly die away.

Swift, lighten up. I personally like abit of humour in any topic regardless of what it's on.

I would lighten up. However, with PS, it's impossible for me because I don't understand his sense of humor in the slightest.

 

[PS]

PS, you have a wonderful way with words. Just thought I'd say.

Thanks, it helps in English when you've lost your imagination.

 

[PS]

I would lighten up. However, with PS, it's impossible for me because I don't understand his sense of humor in the slightest.

You're not the only one . However, TouringMars usually gets it and sometimes Famine.

[edit]


Hint: It's quite Marilyn Manson-esque and satirical of the human mind. If you knew him, you'd know me.

 

[Swift]

***********

Well, you didn't see the irony of my post, so I'm going to explain it.

Creationists say that "God" has always been, without offering any proof or otherwise substantial data.

I just said that the perks of matter is that it's always been, whilst offering no proof or otherwise substantial data.

See the irony?

Well, yeah. But I actually said that a few pages ago.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1766787&postcount=976

 

[(G)]

However, with PS, it's impossible for me because I don't understand his sense of humor in the slightest.

Yeah, it's pretty strange. Mostly militant.

 

[PS]

Yeah, it's pretty strange. Mostly militant.

*It's called satire. Get used to it, or die.

 

[PS]

Well, yeah. But I actually said that a few pages ago.

And I thought you'd go back to it after I shed a little light upon its' intentions. But, apparently you didn't, so I brought up and explained the irony.

 

[Danoff]

Honestly bud. I'm really having a hard time with that. I mean, if we look at it from that way. Things could've been very different if we were only about 5-10 million miles closer to the sun. It's just the fact that everything seemed to work out so well with no design, intellegence or forthought. It just exists because that's how nature works. That's my struggling point.

You're having trouble with it because you're assuming that humanity had to exist as it does now. If we were 5-10 million miles closer or farther to the sun, perhaps life would have sprung up anyway - but in a slightly different form.

You're also not taking into account the billions of stars that are out there. Of all those stars one of them was bound to have a planet at about this distance from the sun right? And if there really are billions, life could practically be a statistical certainty on at least one planet somewhere in the universe.

That's my point, that evolutionists think we resulted from natural processes. The chance involved is that we showed up on this particular rock and in this particular form rather than some other rock somewhere else in the universe in some other form.


So it's really not an accident. In fact, if you look at it a certain way, it could be guaranteed. All that you have to assume are the laws of physics and the nature of our reality (ie: properties of matter, etc.). So it's not an accident, but rather, a logical consequence.