Human evolution vs Creationism

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

1.) No. The fossil record provides a large amount of support for the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, change in the composition of species over time.
2.) Verified testable predictions are the gold standard for testing a theory in all of science. There is simply no better standard of proof for an explanatory framework in the entire world.
3.) Genetics in its modern form is entirely based upon evolutionary lines of thought. It is the basis for our understanding of life.

Part 2:

1.) Kent Hovind is a national joke. Not only does he believe the dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time, but he is so poorly thought of that even other young earth creationists have condemned him for 'persistently using false and discredited arguments'. I have watched excerpts from Hovind's 'debates', and the only thing that actually comes out from those is that he has no fucking clue about the theory of evolution. In one of them he says that evolutionists think that humans evolved from bananas. The primary thing to get from those debates is that the people he is debating are baffled at how to respond to what he's saying, because it bears no resemblance to reality.
2.) Holy shit no it doesn't.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ironwing
This is America, we should let the markets decide whether evolution or creationism makes more sense. Oh, wait, the markets already did. Oil companies don't hire crackpot religious nutjobs to douse for oil. They hire geologists to find oil.

Dumb. One can be deeply religious and very scientific. Try again.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I've always wondered how blood vessels knew how to snake all over the body to deliver nutrients, or how a patch of light sensitive cells connected to a series of neurons to produce "sight"

Truthfully, we don't know. However, the alternative to "not know" is not to believe in a guiding force. Its to do more research and to more experimentation. Personally, I think that while a living thing is incredibly interesting, when we break it down, its just a series of simple things that came together through interaction.

At least in the case of neurons - trophic factors ("keep alive" signals) are released by tissues that need a neuronal connection. Neurons just grow randomly, the ones that catch hold of the tissue and the trophic factor stay alive, the ones that don't undergo apoptosis (controlled dying). I'd imagine its a similar mechanism for blood vessels - just think of cancer cells - some release statins that cause blood vessel growth towards themselves to get more food and thus a class of drugs was created to stop these statins (endostatins).

To the OP:

It sounds like a case of this quote (from a tv show in regards to "What is God?"), I've highlighted the relevant part of the quote.

If I take a lamp and shine it toward the wall, a bright spot will appear on the wall. The lamp is our search for truth, for understanding. Too often we assume that the light on the wall is God. But the light is not the goal of the search; it is the result of the search. The more intense the search, the brighter the light on the wall. The brighter the light on the wall, the greater the sense of revelation upon seeing it! Similarly, someone who does not search, who does not bring a lantern with him, sees nothing. What we perceive as God, is the byproduct of our search for God. It may simply be an appreciation of the light, pure and unblemished, not understanding that it comes from us. Sometimes we stand in front of the light and assume that we are the center of the universe. God looks astonishingly like we do! Or we turn to look at our shadow, and assume that all is darkness. If we allow ourselves to get in the way, we defeat the purpose; which is to use the light of our search to illuminate the wall in all its beauty?and in all its flaws. And in so doing better understand the world around us.

It's nearly impossible to say if there is some overall guiding hand in the evolutionary process; there is neither evidence for or against this 'guiding hand', thus, science relies only upon what it can observe and test. It seems that in your understanding of evolution, you're looking at the result and drawing a conclusion instead of looking at the small changes that occured over a billion years that brought us to where we are today.

In the end, the debate isn't between Evolution and Creationism - the former deals with how we came from point A to X without even considering how we got point A in the first place. The latter tries to explain (and rather poorly at that) on how we already started at point A. Intelligent design tries to rectify this by using the evolutionary process to a degree and saying it was a "Creator" that guided the process, but you can't show evidence for or against, and thus it doesn't qualify as science.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

1. WTF. You don't think that a fossil that shows a between structure shows evolution? And no, it does not show that the creature is dead. Ceolacanth anyone?

2. Yes...thats how everything works in life. We build upon theories, and if they don't work, we reject the theory, and try again

3. I don't think you understand how evolution works. Common ancestors. Not, FISH TO BIRDS.

1. What evidence for a flood? Kent Howard is in jail for 10 years for 58 tax offenses. Amazing christian don't you think? This guys says dinosaurs and humans walked together, He thinks that a ice meteor came flying to earth and broke up. And it caused snow to call, and cracked the crust of the earth, and causing an ice age. He says the grand canyon was made in a couple of weeks and that human lifespans were longer than today.

This is guy is nuts

2. I just don't know what to say to this. Wow.

Ok...

1) If evolution is true, don't you think that millions and billions of "transitional" fossils would be found? Fossils are just that, fossils, you have no idea if that creature had any offspring at all.

2) Well we agree on something, i think.

3) I didn't say a daddy fish and a mommy fish gave birth to a pelican, maybe you didn't understand what I wrote? I'm talking of creature species A over billions of years evolving into creature species B. I can't make it any plainer.

4) Your assault on his character does nothing to his work and only shows that maybe you can't or don't want to debate what he actually talked about? He does have a lot of theories, as you mentioned some, but he doesn't believe in them more than a theory from what i've seen. Take a look at the evidence he's found in his videos, that he's debated with hundreds of college professors over. IF you dare, but please stop the ad homenum attacks, they only make you desparate and foolish. If you want to mock that he got himself locked up for claiming all his property was God's and not the state, have at it, but it doesn't all invalidate his scientific work.

1. Nope. A stupidly small percentage of animals get fossilized. You need a very specific set of conditions to get a fossil. Its the same reason why we don't find a gazillion fossils every where we dig, even when life has existed for millions of years.

I'm talking of creature species A over billions of years evolving into creature species B. I can't make it any plainer.

And I'm saying this is a completely flawed concept and shows NO understanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't say that the bird becomes a fish ( though it can still happen) it says down the line, they have a common ancestor and that the common ancestor branched off into different animals. That's the evolution we're talking about, not, BIRD BECOMES FISH DURRR. And considering how many birds act like fish (Exhibit A: The Penguin) I don't doubt that birds and fish are very related.

4. Okay, ad homenum attacks are justified in some cases. Its not like I said "LOL HES GHEY" (No offense to gays) I'm saying the incredible amount of things that he believes in (which are utterly ridiculous) destroys every shred of credibility he has. He has a theme park that states dinosaurs lived with humans. I would be perfectly willing to "debate" it.

And oh yeah, he does say that people are using Ad Homenum attacks against him, but its kind of justified when he lies about his credentials, and has NO qualification to be talking about anything he says. Sure I'm attacking the person himself, instead of the argument. But how do you debate an argument made a person that cant make a logical one. if a cray guy came up to me and said, MY HEAD IS ON FIRE, when its not, I would be justified in saying, that the guy is crazy

Karen Bartlet, a chemist, commented that Hovind's "message appeals to those who are unaware that his 'evidence' is without merit."

Anyone can make arguments. You have to put actual scientific evidence to prove it. I would like to put the burden on YOU to provide peer reviewed studies showing exactly what he did to come to his conclusion that the earth was hit by a meteor that cause the noahs ark story.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: grohl
Human evolution vs Creationism

You do realize that these are not mutually exclusive? The origin of life is a seperate issue from evolution, and is a far thornier one. There's plenty of folks out there who accept the fact of evolution and yet are sceptical of the idea of abiogenisis, including quite a few who aren't religious at all as well as those who are.

Depends on who you ask. While I will admit that there are people who accept the evolutionary theory of the development of life while still being open to the idea of a spiritual ORIGIN of life, Creationism as portrayed by most modern supporters tends to be of the variety that directly conflicts with evolutionary theory...that life as we know it today was either created this way by a creator or was "guided" to develop this way by the same supreme being. Now maybe those people simply make the most noise, but the origin question seems far less of an issue...if only because the science behind it is far less certain.

I will stipulate your point. However, I would like you to likewise grant that there are those out there who believe in Evolution, and from this incorrectly deduce that evolution rules out a divinely sourced origin of life. In other words, belief or disbelief in evolution does not affect the truth value of any position one might hold on the origins of life.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing
This is America, we should let the markets decide whether evolution or creationism makes more sense. Oh, wait, the markets already did. Oil companies don't hire crackpot religious nutjobs to douse for oil. They hire geologists to find oil.

Dumb. One can be deeply religious and very scientific. Try again.

Show me an oil company that uses creationist principles to find oil. They don't. They use sound science, including inferences based upon evolutionary theory. Creationism has no practical value; it is merely a good yarn to spin before passing the collection plate. Evolution is useful.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

1.) No. The fossil record provides a large amount of support for the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, change in the composition of species over time.
2.) Verified testable predictions are the gold standard for testing a theory in all of science. There is simply no better standard of proof for an explanatory framework in the entire world.
3.) Genetics in its modern form is entirely based upon evolutionary lines of thought. It is the basis for our understanding of life.

Part 2:

1.) Kent Hovind is a national joke. Not only does he believe the dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time, but he is so poorly thought of that even other young earth creationists have condemned him for 'persistently using false and discredited arguments'. I have watched excerpts from Hovind's 'debates', and the only thing that actually comes out from those is that he has no fucking clue about the theory of evolution. In one of them he says that evolutionists think that humans evolved from bananas. The primary thing to get from those debates is that the people he is debating are baffled at how to respond to what he's saying, because it bears no resemblance to reality.
2.) Holy shit no it doesn't.

1.) No is right. Where are the fossil records found and how exactly do "The fossil record provides a large amount of support for the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, change in the composition of species over time." And don't give me some crap line about not wanting to take the time to explain either, just give everyone a layman's explanation of how this works.
2) We agree that Verified testable predictions are the gold standard. Evolution has none. Evolution has a lot of ASSumptions about the overall theory, and SOME have been proven, but the overall theory is still that, a theory.
3) Wrong again. Genetics in it's modern form is based entirely on demonstrable, testable, verifiable evidence of DNA/RNA, etc. Genetics has nothing to do with evolution, what are you smoking?

1) Wow, i can categorically say, You don't know what you're talking about. Plain and simple. He never says that evolutions think that humans evolved from banana's. your making shit up to fit your argument. He was illustrating, with a joke, that evolutionists believe that non-living matter can evolve into living matter.
2) Holy poo poo yes it does. See, i can use high logic and reason too! You really don't believe that the current population of the earth can be traced back to approx 6000 years, given what we know about famine and diseases, etc?

 

[fskimospy]

Just as a note to everyone in this thread: Duwelon has made a habit of showing up in threads about evolution for quite some time now. It's become painfully obvious from them that he lacks even a basic understanding of the theory of evolution, and that many of the 'facts' that he has about it are flatly wrong. I believe that his idea of what evolution is all about comes from these very same young earth creationists such as Hovind that he references.

It's not just that he doesn't understand evolution, but he's shown that he has no desire to. If you search back for other evolution threads you will see pages and pages of people painstakingly attempting to educate him, and you will see him happily ignore it all. I'm okay with trashing him some more, but everyone should be aware that actually reasoning with him is futile.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

1.) No. The fossil record provides a large amount of support for the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, change in the composition of species over time.
2.) Verified testable predictions are the gold standard for testing a theory in all of science. There is simply no better standard of proof for an explanatory framework in the entire world.
3.) Genetics in its modern form is entirely based upon evolutionary lines of thought. It is the basis for our understanding of life.

Part 2:

1.) Kent Hovind is a national joke. Not only does he believe the dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time, but he is so poorly thought of that even other young earth creationists have condemned him for 'persistently using false and discredited arguments'. I have watched excerpts from Hovind's 'debates', and the only thing that actually comes out from those is that he has no fucking clue about the theory of evolution. In one of them he says that evolutionists think that humans evolved from bananas. The primary thing to get from those debates is that the people he is debating are baffled at how to respond to what he's saying, because it bears no resemblance to reality.
2.) Holy shit no it doesn't.

1.) No is right. Where are the fossil records found and how exactly do "The fossil record provides a large amount of support for the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, change in the composition of species over time." And don't give me some crap line about not wanting to take the time to explain either, just give everyone a layman's explanation of how this works.
2) We agree that Verified testable predictions are the gold standard. Evolution has none. Evolution has a lot of ASSumptions about the overall theory, and SOME have been proven, but the overall theory is still that, a theory.
3) Wrong again. Genetics in it's modern form is based entirely on demonstrable, testable, verifiable evidence of DNA/RNA, etc. Genetics has nothing to do with evolution, what are you smoking?

1) Wow, i can categorically say, You don't know what you're talking about. Plain and simple. He never says that evolutions think that humans evolved from banana's. your making shit up to fit your argument. He was illustrating, with a joke, that evolutionists believe that non-living matter can evolve into living matter.
2) Holy poo poo yes it does. See, i can use high logic and reason too! You really don't believe that the current population of the earth can be traced back to approx 6000 years, given what we know about famine and diseases, etc?

The fact that evolution is called a theory means that it as highly venerated in science as it can be.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Wow, i can categorically say, You don't know what you're talking about. Plain and simple. He never says that evolutions think that humans evolved from banana's. your making shit up to fit your argument. He was illustrating, with a joke, that evolutionists believe that non-living matter can evolve into living matter.

Except a Banana IS LIVING. And did you know that a Banana is 60% similar to us genetically?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing
This is America, we should let the markets decide whether evolution or creationism makes more sense. Oh, wait, the markets already did. Oil companies don't hire crackpot religious nutjobs to douse for oil. They hire geologists to find oil.

Dumb. One can be deeply religious and very scientific. Try again.

Show me an oil company that uses creationist principles to find oil. They don't. They use sound science, including inferences based upon evolutionary theory. Creationism has no practical value; it is merely a good yarn to spin before passing the collection plate. Evolution is useful.

Evolution is not all science. It's not even a lot of science, besides a lot of scientific theory. When a geologist goes looking for oil, they use the real scientific methods that are actually demonstratable and repeatable to help guide them to places where oil might be found.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing
This is America, we should let the markets decide whether evolution or creationism makes more sense. Oh, wait, the markets already did. Oil companies don't hire crackpot religious nutjobs to douse for oil. They hire geologists to find oil.

Dumb. One can be deeply religious and very scientific. Try again.

Show me an oil company that uses creationist principles to find oil. They don't. They use sound science, including inferences based upon evolutionary theory. Creationism has no practical value; it is merely a good yarn to spin before passing the collection plate. Evolution is useful.

Evolution does not explain the existence of life, creationism does.

Evolution does not provide mean to ones life, religion does.

Man survived many centuries without the concept of evolution. The concept of religion however has been around as long as recorded history.

Finally, from a practical point of view evolution is NOT useful. It does not provide us with any useful knowledge, other than filling in historical blanks. But scientists don't use evolution to explain things or to provide man with products or creations. And those geologists aren't using evolution to find oil, they are using ground samples and geological history.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Wow, i can categorically say, You don't know what you're talking about. Plain and simple. He never says that evolutions think that humans evolved from banana's. your making shit up to fit your argument. He was illustrating, with a joke, that evolutionists believe that non-living matter can evolve into living matter.

Except a Banana IS LIVING. And did you know that a Banana is 60% similar to us genetically?

It's wet, squishy, tasty. To some other animals on the earth i bet humans and banana's are 100% similar .

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing
This is America, we should let the markets decide whether evolution or creationism makes more sense. Oh, wait, the markets already did. Oil companies don't hire crackpot religious nutjobs to douse for oil. They hire geologists to find oil.

Dumb. One can be deeply religious and very scientific. Try again.

Show me an oil company that uses creationist principles to find oil. They don't. They use sound science, including inferences based upon evolutionary theory. Creationism has no practical value; it is merely a good yarn to spin before passing the collection plate. Evolution is useful.

Evolution is not all science. It's not even a lot of science, besides a lot of scientific theory. When a geologist goes looking for oil, they use the real scientific methods that are actually demonstratable and repeatable to help guide them to places where oil might be found.

/continues to bang my head against the table

Please learn what a theory is

Everything in science is a theory. Law of Gravity? Its a theory that has alot of evidence behind it. So far, its worked pretty damn well. Doesn't mean it wont be disproved. Thats why is the "Theory of Gravity" The fact that everything is disprovable is the reason why science is so great. Even when looking for oil geologists many scientific theories to find oil.

 

[miketheidiot]

why do people even bother arguing with duwelon, the guy is not sane, you aren't going to convince him not matter how much data you have, and to be honest i don't think he's smart enough to understand it even if he wasn't a close minded fool.

either that or he's a top quality troll.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
why do people even bother arguing with duwelon, the guy is not sane, you aren't going to convince him not matter how much data you have, and to be honest i don't think he's smart enough to understand it even if he wasn't a close minded fool.

either that or he's a top quality troll.

The only close minded fool in this thread so far is yourself. It's been fairly civil and people actually presenting points and counter-points till you showed, spewed your crap and ran off. IF anyone is a troll it's you, bashing myself without espousing any of your beloved "proof" yourself.

 

[Jeff7]

eskimospy: Agreed. I might as well start citing Nostradamus as a reliable source of historical facts.

The closest thing to a "global flood" has been evidence of an asteroid impacting the Indian Ocean. Think of how that would have looked back when the Bible was being cobbled together. The ocean would rise up and consume vast shorelines. Survivors would tell horrific tales that would get embellished each time they were told. In not too long, the wall of water was so terrible, the flooding lasted for 40 days and 40 nights and covered even the mountains. And the death toll would have been huge, so much to say that only a "god" could have done it because he was angry.


"Complexity" - another word that gets thrown around a lot. It's a relative term. Things like cells may seem complex to some on first sight because we're trying to comprehend in a short lifetime what nature spent billions of years doing. Our sciences are only in their infancy. We have much yet to learn. And every time science learns something new, it's one less thing for which a deity is required.
Not too long ago, some believed that a deity carried the Sun across the sky in a chariot, or that a mighty god hurled lightning bolts down upon Earth.

Sun: It doesn't get carried across the sky by Ra. Earth rotates and revolves about the Sun. The appearance of the Sun's movement is a result of this.

Lightning: Doesn't get hurled at Earth by Zeus. It's just really big electrical sparks.

God/Allah/Jesus/Whatever: Your table is ready. Zeus and Ra are getting tired of waiting.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing
This is America, we should let the markets decide whether evolution or creationism makes more sense. Oh, wait, the markets already did. Oil companies don't hire crackpot religious nutjobs to douse for oil. They hire geologists to find oil.

Dumb. One can be deeply religious and very scientific. Try again.

Show me an oil company that uses creationist principles to find oil. They don't. They use sound science, including inferences based upon evolutionary theory. Creationism has no practical value; it is merely a good yarn to spin before passing the collection plate. Evolution is useful.

Finally, from a practical point of view evolution is NOT useful. It does not provide us with any useful knowledge, other than filling in historical blanks. But scientists don't use evolution to explain things or to provide man with products or creations. And those geologists aren't using evolution to find oil, they are using ground samples and geological history.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. Evolution is critical to developing understanding of geologic history. For example, oil companies pay geologists plenty of money to study the evolution of foraminifera, little sea critters, because by carefully working out the changes in forams over time, geologists can build stratigraphic models of sedimentary basins which help oil companies figure out where to look for oil. This approach only works because evolution happened.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
2) Holy poo poo yes it does. See, i can use high logic and reason too! You really don't believe that the current population of the earth can be traced back to approx 6000 years, given what we know about famine and diseases, etc?

Dude... the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is dogma that has NO scientific evidence to back it up at all.
It is a theory based on a book that was written by man in the middle ages.

Proof that the world is older than 6000 years is all around us. You don't even have to believe in evolution to believe that the world is greater than 6000 years old.

The city of Damascus has been populated for over 8000 years.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing
This is America, we should let the markets decide whether evolution or creationism makes more sense. Oh, wait, the markets already did. Oil companies don't hire crackpot religious nutjobs to douse for oil. They hire geologists to find oil.

Dumb. One can be deeply religious and very scientific. Try again.

Show me an oil company that uses creationist principles to find oil. They don't. They use sound science, including inferences based upon evolutionary theory. Creationism has no practical value; it is merely a good yarn to spin before passing the collection plate. Evolution is useful.

Evolution is not all science. It's not even a lot of science, besides a lot of scientific theory. When a geologist goes looking for oil, they use the real scientific methods that are actually demonstratable and repeatable to help guide them to places where oil might be found.

/continues to bang my head against the table

Please learn what a theory is

Everything in science is a theory. Law of Gravity? Its a theory that has alot of evidence behind it. So far, its worked pretty damn well. Doesn't mean it wont be disproved. Thats why is the "Theory of Gravity" The fact that everything is disprovable is the reason why science is so great. Even when looking for oil geologists many scientific theories to find oil.

You're right, but I also know that some theories are more sound than others.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Duwelon
2) Holy poo poo yes it does. See, i can use high logic and reason too! You really don't believe that the current population of the earth can be traced back to approx 6000 years, given what we know about famine and diseases, etc?

Dude... the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is dogma that has NO scientific evidence to back it up at all.
It is a theory based on a book that was written by man in the middle ages.

Proof that the world is older than 6000 years is all around us. You don't even have to believe in evolution to believe that the world is greater than 6000 years old.

The city of Damascus has been populated for over 8000 years.

I'm not fixed on 6000 years per se, I should have actually said 4000, not 6000.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

1.) No. The fossil record provides a large amount of support for the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, change in the composition of species over time.
2.) Verified testable predictions are the gold standard for testing a theory in all of science. There is simply no better standard of proof for an explanatory framework in the entire world.
3.) Genetics in its modern form is entirely based upon evolutionary lines of thought. It is the basis for our understanding of life.

Part 2:

1.) Kent Hovind is a national joke. Not only does he believe the dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time, but he is so poorly thought of that even other young earth creationists have condemned him for 'persistently using false and discredited arguments'. I have watched excerpts from Hovind's 'debates', and the only thing that actually comes out from those is that he has no fucking clue about the theory of evolution. In one of them he says that evolutionists think that humans evolved from bananas. The primary thing to get from those debates is that the people he is debating are baffled at how to respond to what he's saying, because it bears no resemblance to reality.
2.) Holy shit no it doesn't.

1.) No is right. Where are the fossil records found and how exactly do "The fossil record provides a large amount of support for the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, change in the composition of species over time." And don't give me some crap line about not wanting to take the time to explain either, just give everyone a layman's explanation of how this works.
2) We agree that Verified testable predictions are the gold standard. Evolution has none. Evolution has a lot of ASSumptions about the overall theory, and SOME have been proven, but the overall theory is still that, a theory.
3) Wrong again. Genetics in it's modern form is based entirely on demonstrable, testable, verifiable evidence of DNA/RNA, etc. Genetics has nothing to do with evolution, what are you smoking?

1) Wow, i can categorically say, You don't know what you're talking about. Plain and simple. He never says that evolutions think that humans evolved from banana's. your making shit up to fit your argument. He was illustrating, with a joke, that evolutionists believe that non-living matter can evolve into living matter.
2) Holy poo poo yes it does. See, i can use high logic and reason too! You really don't believe that the current population of the earth can be traced back to approx 6000 years, given what we know about famine and diseases, etc?

1.) Evolution states that complexity in organisms increases over time, and that organisms share common ancestors. This is in line with the fossil record. If the fossil record were to show complex organisms in earlier strata, this would disprove evolution. (the famous rabbit in the precambrian) This has been explained to you before and you have ignored it.
2.) Evolution has verified testable predictions. Evolution predicted the existence and method of transmission for DNA. It required that not only there be a method of transmission of information from parents to children, but the method by which this was done must be imperfect. It predicted that we would find species that once lived and are now extinct. It predicted the appearance of antibiotic resistant bacteria, and our ability to engineer bacteria to new purposes.
3.) Genetics has everything to do with evolution.

Part 2:

1.) He does in fact claim that, but don't take my word for it. If anyone wants to see the sort of ignorant/batshit insane arguments that Hovind tries to use, along with his banana comment, listen to his debate with Dr. Pigliucci on the subject. Hovind really needs to be heard to be believed. Yes, he's this stupid. Furthermore, as has been explained to you NUMEROUS times in the past, evolution makes no claim as to non-life turning into life. Evolution makes no claim to the origin of life whatsoever. You have been REPEATEDLY educated on this matter, and you have chosen to ignore it.
2.) The population of the earth cannot be traced back to an origin 6,000 years ago for the far more important reason that we have evidence of the existence of man that is considerably more than 6,000 years old. So, no.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

You're right, but I also know that some theories are more sound than others.

Yes, there are certain areas in science where there are competing theories for lack of evidence to justify one over an other and vice versa. In some cases, more evidence is found to support one over another, and in others, both theories are combined to give an even better picture.

Evolution is a pretty sound theory backed by tons of evidence. I'm not going to bother linking stuff though, as you've been shown many times before but don't want to listen.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Evolution does not explain the existence of life, creationism does.

Evolution does not provide mean to ones life, religion does.

Man survived many centuries without the concept of evolution. The concept of religion however has been around as long as recorded history.

Finally, from a practical point of view evolution is NOT useful. It does not provide us with any useful knowledge, other than filling in historical blanks. But scientists don't use evolution to explain things or to provide man with products or creations. And those geologists aren't using evolution to find oil, they are using ground samples and geological history.

Dude, what are you smoking? Evolution has and continues to provide us with an incredible array of products and creations. You heard about one of the newest ways to clean up oil spills? Oil eating bacteria. You know how we made that stuff? With our knowledge of evolution.

If you tried to tell any biotech company that evolution provides us with no useful knowledge that can be turned into products, you would be laughed out of the building.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Depends on who you ask. While I will admit that there are people who accept the evolutionary theory of the development of life while still being open to the idea of a spiritual ORIGIN of life, Creationism as portrayed by most modern supporters tends to be of the variety that directly conflicts with evolutionary theory...that life as we know it today was either created this way by a creator or was "guided" to develop this way by the same supreme being. Now maybe those people simply make the most noise, but the origin question seems far less of an issue...if only because the science behind it is far less certain.

It's a false dichotomy from a modern holistic point of view. Creationism as advocated by the religious fundamentalists is pretty much a defense of biblical literalism which doesn't stand up to much beyond its exemplary entrenchment.

Evolution as a fact of life is in another perspective as much of a spiritual mystery as a material one, and there is plenty of religious and spiritual material which deals with it as such -- but you have to give up some dogmatism and notions of antagonism between spirituality and science to proceed in this direction.