Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

Sam:

"OK, well that would be the issue at hand. AKA Evolutionary theory."

That, right there, is one of the biggest problems Creationist have with Evolutionist. The theory "evolves" to fit whatever you want it to.

What is the definition of Evolution?!?!?!

(1) "A continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world."

Has this been proven or observed? NO!! Then why is is considered fact?!?

OR this definition?

(2) "Evolution is simply the character of the population changing through successive generations."

A lot of people on here want to use these definitions interchangeably, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Definition (2) was taken out of a biology book. Now, I don't think it could be stated any more simplistic/generalized than that. This definition actually fits "microevolution" or "Adaptation" very well. Creationist have no problems with it, as long it is changes within a species!

"Check out the underpinnings of all modern science, aka the "scientific method". Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability."

Ok, I apologize for misreading your statement. I took this as you saying that evolution passes the scientific method. If this is not the case, then forgive me.

"The fact that evolution is supported by all the evidence, fossil or otherwise, and has continued to be supported by new finds without modification of the theory..."

Depends on your definition! Fossils or otherwise does not support definition (1). It does support def. (2), in the sense of "microevolution" or "adaptation".

"I don't mean to be a prick, but I would like to hear some arguments against evolution that are actually intelligent.

I would say that at least 5 out of the 10 pages on here contain INTELLIGENT arguments against evolution! (The Evolutionist just won't answer them.) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just one. It has been mentioned on here previously (multiple times), but has yet to be discussed.

"So let us drop this thread... PLEASE!"

"THAT, sir, is NOT my responsibility. That is YOUR responsibility. You do not need me as your personal life science teacher, and I will not stoop to trying with my time...."

This thread was created to legitimately discuss Evolutionist's points against Creationist's points. If you don't want to play nice, then please don't play at all.

I would LOVE to see you factually disprove any one of the scientific findings contained within:

http://www.contour.org/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=38;t=005291;p=4

Please, be my guest. I HAVE been patient, as have others. I'm tired of the nonsensical arguments, circular reasoning, etc, that I have seen in these and other threads regarding this subject.

BUT UNTIL YOU DO come up with a VALID scientific rebuttal to the points raised there and, to a lesser degree, here, I do not consider this an intelligent discussion.

I fail to see how the theory of evolution has changed since its inception.

Quote:

What is the definition of Evolution?!?!?!

(1) "A continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world."

Has this been proven or observed? NO!! Then why is is considered fact?!?

OR this definition?

(2) "Evolution is simply the character of the population changing through successive generations."

Um, look at those two definitions carefully. They seem very close to identical...

Quote:

A lot of people on here want to use these definitions interchangeably, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Definition (2) was taken out of a biology book. Now, I don't think it could be stated any more simplistic/generalized than that. This definition actually fits "microevolution" or "Adaptation" very well. Creationist have no problems with it, as long it is changes within a species!

Im confused. That leads to speciation, which is what you are arguing against, isn't it?

Quote:

[b]"Check out the underpinnings of all modern science, aka the "scientific method". Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability."

Ok, I apologize for misreading your statement. I took this as you saying that evolution passes the scientific method. If this is not the case, then forgive me.
[/b]

Forgiven, but not for taking my statement out of context.

Quote:

[b]"The fact that evolution is supported by all the evidence, fossil or otherwise, and has continued to be supported by new finds without modification of the theory..."

Depends on your definition! Fossils or otherwise does not support definition (1). It does support def. (2), in the sense of "microevolution" or "adaptation".[/b]

I keep trying to tell you, its one and the same! What, do you think baldness is just something that has always been there? Its a GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION!!! Yet do you think people with a genetic trait for baldness are a different species? NO! Its inter species genetic drift!! If a bunch of people with that genetic trait were isolated and put on a island, allowed to interbreed for, say, 1000 years or so, YOU WOULD HAVE NOTHING BUT BALD FOLKS... you may not even have young adults with ANY HAIR AT ALL! Long enough, say, 100,000 years, and you might not be able to breed with these folks at all... which would mean they are a new species... Do you see what I am saying? The "two definitions" are the same thing! Just a varying degree!

Quote:

This thread was created to legitimately discuss Evolutionist's points against Creationist's points.

There is no "legitimate" discussion of creationism versus evolution. That has been hashed out over the last 150 years, and evolution is the winner.

Having satisfied honor, thats all that I'm going to say...

Anyone, that can still say the things that sampson, and edwardc are repeating, obviously have it out from creationists, and are not willing to look at the evidience objectivly. You have, as was previously said, evolution glasses, through which you interpret the evidence. The circular reasoning rests squarely on your shoulders. You say that the fossils give us a good idea of the age of the rocks, and the rocks give us a good idea of the age of the fossils.
Once again, as for your HUGE VAST body of evidence, (supposedly for evolution) name just two or three, that are not heavily in dispute among evolutionists... As for your comments, if you do not like the thread of this discussion, unless you started the discussion, then you are more than free to choose to leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. You have made up your mind, concerning the evidence, and have chosen one way or another... so why continue here if it is so frustrating to you! Nothing against you personally, I dont even know you, but if it raises your blood pressure so, then discontinue..

unless these bald people you are referring to, continue to have their genes mutated, and or continue to LOSE information from their genetic structure, then even in a thousand years, they could still breed with everyone else. The point here is the net LOSS of the information. They would still be able to breed with everyone else, unless they LOST to much of our genetics. The problem I continually run into with you is that you see a direct correlation between micro evolution (improperly named, should be adaptation, and natural selection) and macro evolution (again improperly named, because it implies some connection to the above mentioned improperly named micro-e....)
I don't know how many times someone has to point this out to the evolutionists, but a species will never, ever mutate to a higher form, and develop extra lungs, or eyes, or anything else. It is biologically impossible...
read the book Darwin's black box... irreducible complexity...it will clearly show in the most plainly scientific terms.. that systems such as eyes, and blood clot, and others simply do not evolve. Now, I understand that with your faith in evolution, you could probably see it coming about somehow, but the rest of us, that would like to see some proof of evolution, have yet to have these tough questions answered. Reading this, you are going to say that I just don't get it, but I think the problem is that you don't understand the difficulty of what you are trying to prove happening.... If there was a God to begin things, his words should explain things the way they are. (I know you have a problem beleiving that).If there was no god then how could things happen by chance. That is patently absurd. Chance... i mean really...
have you not read any of the previous posts...
if a person draws letters randomly out of a hat, even in millions of years, do you think that they could in sequence, draw out the exact expression of your dna..
Furthermore, even if they were the luckiest, and managed to pull it out of this hat... would that sequence mean anything. I mean, what language is it in. What could read the sequence, what could act on that sequence. Chance alone, even given millions/billions of years, simply does not cut it. EVER.
I understand we all have to have faith in something. You have faith in something that is counterintuitive. I have faith in something that seems superficially unacceptable to you, but its acceptance/unacceptance by you doesn't prove or dissprove it. as does my belief yours. The things we see around us, simply do not point to evolution. I mean, all these formulas and "proofs" you always talk about (these mountains of evidence) they are not Fact. They are purely speculation, based on assumptions... When it boils down to it, everyone has a bias. Some are biased towards God. Some are biased against him. If you beleive that there is no God, then you can't explain the world around you with him in your explanation, so you invent theories. Some testable, others not to explain things. The point is, do your theories have the right starting assumptions. You say there is no God, and natural processes can explain the world as it is today. The problem is, all the laws in the natural world, go against what you are trying to prove, and, there is no real explanation for how these laws got there. All your facts in your dumptruckloads of evidence, are contrived through formulas, and measuring and science you say. Well, do you allow for error. Do you allow for catastrophism. Do you allow for things not yet discovered. I mean, if we were to discover a dinosaur existing today, evolution would have to be rewritten. The bible wouldn't. If we observed the work of a catastrophy in progress, such as mount snt hellens, does the bible need to be rewritten. No, but current evolutionary theory needs to be modified to allow for catastrophism. Again and again, evolution is modified, pruned, and new and wilder theories come about, to the rescue of the evolution idea. When will the layperson get involved with the discussion, and realize that everyone is biased. It boils down to which bias, is the better bias to be biased with. Indeed, do we see macroevolution happening, anywhere??
peppered moths, nebraska man, finches, piltdown man, archeopteryx, haeckels drawings... we never actually see evolution.. we only see frauds.. and natural selection...

Again, a new approach.. biases against microsoft set aside for a moment, do you think that the program windows 98 could come about, by taking all the letters that comprise the original program, mixing them randomly, and then expecting them to come out properly. And, if you beleive that billions of years latter it just might happen, then once we have the proper code, what use is it. unless we first have a computer, one that can run the program, because it has machine code. (perhaps I should have left microsoft out of it GRIN)

Ohwell... If you have the idea that God does not exist, or that we can't be sure, then any evidence we point to, that either uses God, or points to him, you will discount as not scientific, because in your mind he does not exist, or can't be shown to exist, because you are not sure he exists.

I bid everyone cheers, and have a great week!

It really is funny. The creationists are willing to see acknowlege the first step of evolution. Adapation. And yet they cannot allow for the possibility of evolution.

However when Man artificially speeds up the process.. i.e. Monsantos (bio engineering company) they won't accept the fact that the same thing might occur naturally.. because "man artificially created that.. not natural"

The problem here is that creationists believe in the fundamentally simplistic story that some all-powerful being created MAN. After all we were created in GOD's image. (funny seems rather egotistical to me.. so we look, act, and reason as does GOD) And yet there is no science proving their claim beyond a document written by a more primitive culture that's text was decided on by Catholic.. yes CATHOLIC priests. Congress of Cardinals.. sometime in the 700's A.D. They basically gathered all the supposed writings up at that point and said.. yes this is in the bible.. he said this.. no.. he didn't say that.. etc etc.

Seems rather comical if you ask me. But this comes down to the fact that creationists have become very good(clever) at manipulating the words in the bible to cover every possibility. They don't understand science, it's tenents or it's methods. And lacking knowledge and skills in science the promote psuedo-science as if it were science because the average person is more likely to understand an emotional plea than hard facts. Too many hard facts are painful for people or just plainly beyond their comprehension. After all.. how many people in say.. mexico understand what a Pagefile is and how corrupt data upsets a database. Or that a link is down and you can't reach a particular site. For that matter SPAM is a meat substitute right?

If they lack even the language and the terminology, how can you expect them to understand fundamental research.

BTW I noticed that all the creationists have completely avoided explaining what a triple blind study is. (for that matter what is a double-blind study) How does statistical analyses work?, what is a weighted average?? What is a mean average?? these are all important to science and it's methods. I haven't seen anyone explain those to me, instead they have qouted psuedo-science references from the NY Times (notorious for it's bad science reporting) and other comparable sources.

At this point I really don't expect creationists to understand evolution (and the fact that the theory is in flux). Because I seriously doubt that they have the language skills to understand what a true scientific study is vs. a pseudo-science one.

Incidentally, the first step of evolution.. adaptation can easily be used against evolution. It's called a fallacy in Logic. The specific fallacy is termined "slippery slope". Slippery slope is a defined term in contemporary philosophy (the study of knowledge). Try reading up on Logic and Rhetoric, every study and article that you have shown has fallacious principles.(besides.. it might make you better able to comprehend the studies) And while evolution is not perfect, it's adapting and changing as new evidence is presented. Creationists just reread the bible and make highly liberal interpertations of it's writings.

And while nothing here I've said will make you believe in evolution shouldn't you have doubts about creationism?

Being open minded about this, I think evolution more fits the facts we have, but do I think it's totally correct.. nope.. it's got problems too. But it's a whole lot closer to the facts than creationism.

Given enough time.. yep I think it could happen. Would it absolutely happen for sure.. no matter what??? maybe.. but it'd be hard to say when.

Get off your soap boxes and actually contribute to this debate otherwise leave. If you have read any of the last 11 pages you would see that it is the creationists (taxed2death and cpurser mainly) who are using scientific laws and coherent reasoning to make their points. You three have instead been sitting back and making ignorant comments the whole time.

Ignorant Jerk
"The creationists dont know what they are talking about blah blah blah they pose no real threat"

Observer
"Why's that?"

Ignorant Jerk
"Because I said so, it's just so scientific to believe whats I say"

It's so frustrating to watch, I mean how can you sit there and say that the creationists are doing nothing more than preaching when with comments like these it is clearly you who are. Come on guys stop wasteing time and actually put forth something proper other wise don't debate in this room. Not one of you has made a list of five major supporting evidences for evolution yet(edward c has quoted major statistics but that dosen't count). Since there is warehouses, dumptrucks or seattle boeing assembly plants full of evidence then it shouldn't be to hard to have five measly pieces for it, that are not in dispute.

By Daveandrews:
No doubts actually...I believe it would have taken God to create you...A$$ holes don't evolve from humans.

Sorry, but your post was very out of line and quite offensive...If attacking religion is your best defense, your fight has already been lost. Seems the longer this thread goes on, the more back-handed and aggressive the evolutionists become. EdwardC, I was relieved when you were a polite heretic. Now you have become a scathing man who thinks that a bunch of letters behind a name actually impresses me. I remember when this thread had a mature nature....oh, about 8 pages ago...

By Daveandrews:
That is circular reasoning at its best! I believe in what facts we have now...but we don't have all the facts...Then how could you even be remotely sure? Let alone, how many FACTS are there about evolution? Not one thing has been scientifically proven...You may quote me a bunch of studies, but remember...they don't prove anything, because we don't have all the facts.