Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

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.