Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

I didnt say that...I was just referring to that statement....why would I quote that and then disagree with it? :rolleyes:

Just wondering.. anyone here know the definition of a theory?

Since both creationism and evolution are theories.. not facts I thought I'd mention this.

I do have to point out that there is very little credibly evidence for the Creationist theory that the world is 6,000 years old. If only for the fact that even with the failings of Carbon dating, we can easily find examples that are 30,000 years old.

If you think that a God would place on this earth fossils and other such evidence for the sole purpose of misleading. I'd say you've lost more than a few screws. That or God is just insane. Ohh and also, go up to any.. I repeat any Catholic Priest and ask them about the existence of Satan. Then ask them to explain who and/or what Satan is. If you've studied western philosophy and have read many of the writings of Saints and other religious thinkers you would know (like the priest does) that there is only God and the absence of God. To think that there are omnipotent and omniscient beings that are somehow limited by "rules" is plain nonsense.

After reading through many of these posts here, I do wonder what has happened in this country. It seems to me that too many of us do not understand what critical thinking is. If you want to take a course about creationism great, it will probably be done in about 3 hours tops.. maybe 20 if you're really really desperate for every little detail. On the other hand, you can take years to study the evidence that exists for evolution. And while it may be wrong, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of evidence pionts to evolution. And yes, many of the tests to date things have been proven wrong however, the great thing here about science is that it requires REPEATABLE results.

And while your articles pointing to individual failures are nice and well appreciated there exists thousands more expirements out there that are fact. The New York Times as a guide?? that is good, a bunch of liberal unscientific minds writing about the scientific process. Wonderful credentials there, I find them TOTALLY trustworthy. Just like I find the rest of the news COMPLETELY factual and unbiased. Remember cold fusion??? the uproar that caused and all the "Reports" in supposed credible new sources. It was also shown how poorly the experiment had been conducted in the first place. BECAUSE science require repeatable results for something to become a fact.

So while both theories may be in fact correct or incorrect when you look at the total evidence for each. On one side creationism with it's anthill of evidence and on the other the Mount Everest of evidence, I'd say I think I'll follow the Mount Everest side and believe in evolution(with reservation, it is after all a theory).

A perfect example that everyone should remember from high school biology class. In the late 1800's to early 1900's the White moth in britain had almost totally disappeared. While the Moths with the recessive gene(remember those???) for being black almost completely took over. This was due to the dirt and pollution accumulating on the trees turning them black. The white moths stood out and the birds feasted on them, while the black moths flourished. Now with the pollution controls and etc. of the modern world, the white moth (with the dominant gene) has returned and the Black moth has almost disappeared. Think on that one.

After all if we teach Creationism, we need to teach the muslim viewpoint, the Hindu veiwpoint and probably most of the other major religions in the world. That would only be just and fair. I'm just wondering how you give equal time to creationism as to evolution. After all creationism isn't exactly mounting up warehouses of evidence.

Posted by: DaveAndrews
Why, then, In the book of Job, does God limit Satan's effects on Job. God will not allow Satan to harm Job in the beginning...Then he allows harm, but no death...sounds like rules to me!

That leads me to say that satan is NOT omnipotent, nor omniscient, since if he knew all, he would have known that:
1. He would fail with Job.
2. He would fail at the cross.
3. He will fail in Armageddon....

And if a catholic priest doesn't believe in that, then he shouldn't be leading a church!

Uhhh Catholics don't take the Bible literally. If you did that you end up getting way too tied up in the many contradictions that exist in the bible. Which is even more ludicrous.

Agreed....Neco has this rule....I think it is a great one, too!

Evolution isn't mounting up warehouses with evidence either!! Most of their proofs are frauds or they don't turn out to be what they are supposed to.
eg. life on mars
all supposed missing links
archeoraptor

The big bang has been abandoned and so has darwinism. Now absurdities such as punctuated equalibrium are being considered.

Who made God?
Am I a monkey?

no one made him

and yes you are, want a banana???

blitzkrieg53:
Thanks for your support.

whiteSE:
It can be said that evolution can be considered a religion. It is a belief, just like creationism.

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. And I am sure I will get flamed beyond belief that that statement!

Daveandrews:
I have taken a lot of time to show evidence that evolution cannot have taken place. Correct me if I am wrong, no one has done a good job of refuting the evidence that I have provided. You say that "the majority of evidence points toward evolution." I have repeatedly asked for this evidence that you speak of. Could you please provide some of this overwhelming amount of evidence? You speak of repeatable results? Please provide me these repeatable results! That is all I ask.

Your example of the moths in Britian is a poor argument for evolution. It is an example of adaptation within a species, not evolution. Creationists fully agree with adaptation within a species.

Also, someone mentioned that there are many contradictions in the Bible. Could someone please point these out to me?