Evolution or Creation

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by George15, Mar 12, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fat_Fett Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2001
    star 4
    Fine.

    Just for the record I was not the one who mentioned all the downfalls of another religion....that was Snowdog attacking Christianity.

    I was not being the hypocrite. I did not say that people of other religions are evil. I did say that evolutionists are hypocrites becuase they say that the book of Genisis is a fairy tail becuase it has no scientific proof, and then they sometimes use primordial soup as a theory in their science, even though their is no evidence for it either.

    They say that faith in Creationism is not science.

    They say that faith in Evolution IS science.

    But didn't they say that faith was not science in the first place?

    To use the theory of primordial soup, or the big bang for that matter, they need to follow by blind faith, just like Creationists follow Creationism.

    But somehow when they place faith in an idea (not a hypothesis, which is an educated guess based on already existing facts), it is still science.

    Can someone please tell me how faith in primordial soup or the Big Bang theory IS science while faith in Creationism is not science (and you must hold up your argument that faith can not be science)?

    This is bias in a debate.

    The evolutionists have created their own stumbling block, but they choose to ignore it rather than address it as a problem, because one of their main arguments has been "faith is not science."

    THIS is hypocrisy.
  2. Goldberry Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2001
    star 4
    "Primordial soup" is a figure of speech, not a theory. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, fine. But learn something about it beyond a single phrase first. And as others have already said, abiogensis is not evolution. Darwin had no theory of abiogenesis - he was interested in the history of life, not its origin.

    You keep accusing people of just having faith in evolution, as you do in creation. But you seem completely ignorant of the content of these theories and the tests which they've been subjected to. It's understandable given that you're only 16, but you should still do some real research before you dismiss the work of thousands of serious biologists, biochemists, paleontologists and philosophers.

    There is plenty of serious work on abiogenesis, which is not to say that there's a final, settled view. But that's the nature of science-- we don't claim to know what hasn't been worked out and tested in detail, and we don't just "make it up" to fit the facts. What we have in abiogenesis studies is a detailed understanding of a wide range of chemical details, including simple chemical processes that give rise to a wide range of organic molecules, chemistry of and on various surfaces and membranes, self-catalysing and replicating RNA, and still more primitive self-replicating systems. To dismiss all this work with cracks about "primordial soup" shows exactly why you think evolution and creation are both just "faith": you don't know the first thing about how observations (in the lab and in the field) can confirm scientific theories-- not by "proving" everything they claim (physics can't do that anymore than biology can) but by finding a wide range of consequences that can be tested, and carrying out the tests. What predictions does creation make about how things are in the natural world, beyond things we already know?

    Darwin's theory predicts many, many things that weren't known when he first proposed it-- about the fossil record, about relations between the biochemistry of various organisms, about the dynamics of populations over time and how their characteristics tend to change, about the geographical distribution of related life forms and fossils... and the modern synthetic theory of evolution, combining genetics with selection, predicts still more striking observations whose truth was unknown when the theory was proposed.

    What novel and confirmed predictions about life does creationism make? None, to my knowledge-- and I've read the creationist literature pretty thoroughly, which is a lot more than I can say for your reading of evolutionary literature. Why don't you get a copy of the origin (or of Futuyma's text on evolution, or of his Science on Trial) and learn a thing or two?
  3. Double_Sting Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 2001
    star 4
    If I was a Christian soldier, I am not instructed by my religion to kill my enemy. I am instructed by my government to kill my enemy.

    *cough* And in the crusades the church just asked these people to go and play hackysack with the Muslims and refrain from killing them *cough*.


    Look, this is a discussion on EVOLUTION vs CREATION. I suggest that all of us immediatly move away from attacking other religions and get back to the issue on hand.

    Especially you Fat_Fett. The majority of your posts are about claiming that Christianity is superior to other religions and belittling other religions. The others here are just defending for the most part.
  4. Peez Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    R2D2-PENA:
    I have posted information but you evolutionists decided to debunk it by your bias, calling those scientists liars, or hoaxes, read my earlier posts, but since i noticed your attitude towards my posts, i decided not to post any more.
    Except this one, of course. Look, just claiming that you have posted evidence is easy to do. You clearly do not understand evolution, so I can understand that you do not know how to evaluate it. What I don't understand is your arrogant insistence that you have somehow shown it to be in error, and your refusal to even mention your supposed "evidence."
    And next time you decide to quote me, please be kind to include the whole quote, not just the part that you can use to your advantage, please.
    In what way did I choose something to use to my "advantage"? Are you claiming that the part that I quoted does not reflect your intended meaning? I do not think so, and it seemed pointless to clutter the post with your rant. Here it is:
    We can post as much scientific proof that supports creation and they will call the scientists liars, biased, ignorant, unqualified, etc. just because it does not support their side. We call creationism a science, since it IS, because it does comply with their 4 or 5 points that must be met to qualify, but that is just according to these evolutionists. This bickering is pointless, let them swim in ignorance, because i wont do it. Let them keep their faith on their scientific speculation, unproven "observation" (which i greatly doubt since the time frame needed to prove all that is way beyond observation), and just stick to your own beliefs.
    Exactly why did you think that it was important that I include all of that? I was specifically addressing your implication that you had posted "scientific proof" (whatever that is), so the remainder seems pointless. Also, "next time you decide to quote me, please be kind to include the whole quote, not just the part that you can use to your advantage, please." ;)
    I'M OUT!!
    Bye.

    Peez
  5. Peez Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Fat_Fett:
    <rant on Christianity omitted>
    No matter how much all you Evolutionists try to sound like "scientists," with all of your INSTANTLY correct facts, you don't even follow the #1 rule of being a debating scientist...
    What is an "Evolutionist"? What is an "instantly correct fact"? What is a "debating scientist? Were you aware that oral debate is not how scientists work? Svientists carefully consider the evidence, generate hypotheses, test them, draw conclusions, and report everything (how the test was conducted, what were the results, how were they interpreted, how were the conclusions drawn) along with references. Debating is about convincing the audience that you are right regardless of whether you are or not.
    ....you are supposed to be objectionable, not biased!
    We are supposed to be objectionable? ;) Perhaps you mean objective. Yes, scientists are supposed to be as objective as possible, unlike creationists.
    Why do you address only some of the subjects we bring up?
    Time. I do not have time to deal with the masses of writing that you creationists have been posting (especially since most of these "points" have been dealt with time and again elsewhere). I note that you creationists are certainly not addressing all of the subjects that we scientists are bringing up.
    You leave others totally ignored becuase [sic] you don't have an answer for them!
    s this a guess, or are you able to read my mind? Give me one example, and I will address it for you. If I do this, would you be willing to apologize for implying (incorrectly) that I am being dishonest here.
    And....this...somehow ISN'T biased?
    What, that I do not have time to post about every little thing that you say?
    Why do no famous Evolutionists come into a debate with any Creationists? They are afraid that their bias will be exposed, and with a bias they can not be legit scientists.
    LOL! You have no idea how science works, do you? Science is not served by "debating" with a person skilled in convincing people without evidence. Actually, most scientists are simply not interested because evolution is so well supported that such debate is pointless (especially with someone as ignorant of evolution as most creationists). If a creationist is not afraid of real debate, let him or her eneter into a written debate with a leading scientist in the field. By the way, do you have any actual evidence that any "Evolutionists" have refused to debate with creationists? Just wondering.
    One more BIG problem that none of you have addressed yet. No matter who's theory on evolution you are using (wow - there are different theories on evolution, just like there are different Christian denominations who can't agree on minor technicalities....somehow you only critique the denominations. Bias, no doubt),
    There is, indeed, disagreement on some details of evolutionary theory (that is what makes it an exciting field of research), but no evolutionary biologist doubts that species have evolved from common ancestors, and none doubt that evolution of adaptations has occurred by mutation and natural selection. On the other hand, there are Christian creationists and Muslim creationists and Cree creationists, and they have radically different ideas about how living things came to be the way that they are. Even among Christians, there are those who are creationists and those who accept evolution. It is pretty clear where your bias is.
    all Evolutionary theories (to my knowledge) refer to the Primordial Soup as the place from which the first living cells originated.
    Quite frankly, your knowledge is under-impressive. You obviously know little and understand less about evolution. How about giving us a reference to just one of those "evolutionary theories" that refer to a "Primordial Soup."
    However, there is not ONE fact to support this t
  6. Goldberry Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2001
    star 4
    Maybe he finds scientists objectionable, but still thinks they should be objective? ;)
  7. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Ok, to go back to Fat_Fett's "Evidence for a Young Earth":

    1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

    ...For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy...


    This is a good example of scientific scrutiny. I applaud the effort. However, what it demonstrates to me is what I already know, that the age of the universe and our galaxy is still being tested, scrutinized and the testing procedures are being "fine tuned" to get a better fix. This study alone does not conclusively prove that the age of the earth is 6000 years. It just means that proving the age of the galaxy beyond reasonable doubt is going to be more difficult than it seems... difficult, but not impossible.

    2. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

    According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years.


    No, actually evolutionary theory deals with evolution of living organisms... nothing more. The age of comets has nothing to do with evolution theory.

    The only reason which evolutionists might refer to comets, meteorites and asteroids is not specifically to validate the age of the earth... but in discussion of the possible phenomenas which may have been responsible for changing our atmospheric conditions and causing evolutionary leaps by putting environmental pressure on the biosphere.

    3. Not enough mud on the sea floor

    I can't comment fully on this area because I haven't yet done enough research on it. I do not question the research that you've presented, but I am concerned about the way in which inferences favoring creationism are made... allow me to explain:

    As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

    This is possible, but it also has to contend with other methods of aging that are more accurate than geological inferences... particularly radiocarbon (C14) dating, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry and Nuclide aging. The accuracies of these combined methods go back to at least 80 million years, and the degree of accuracy, dependent on sample frequency, comparison, and calibrating the results to account for changing atmospheric conditions over time, is often closer to that of a cesium clock. As I mentioned in a previous post, even geologists will contend that their methods of aging rock and sediment are often only accurate to extremely large deviations (millions of years), which can be good approximations. However, the aging techniques of the living matter itself are more finely accurate and still provide results that have given us approximations that date back many many millions of years.

    Again, I'll let someone else with more knowledge and information about this particular area debate the specifics here, but I'm concerned more with the logic of the inference you make at the end...

    An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

    Obviously, if the above data you presented suggests anywhere within the past 12 million years, it doesn't agree with or specifically prove the above creationist explanation of 5000 years. From what scientific data do they make that assertion? Please present it. It's good to question and challenge these findings because it does force us to find more accurate methods of testing. However, it doesn't prove the Creationist argument.

    Every year, rivers7 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of t
  8. Lord Bane Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    May 26, 1999
    star 5
    Hi. This thread has been getting a little heated. Cool down before posting or this thread gets nuked.
  9. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    before this thread gets nuked.

    There you have it.

    Thread-volution by process of unnatural selection.
  10. Republic_Clone_69 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 1
    So we're talking about evidence for the age of the earth now? (Which really has very little to do with evolutionary biology.)
    I'll take that challenge. ;)


    Age of the galaxy

    The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in our galaxy. The galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. This would indicate that our galaxy is much older than 10 millennia.


    Indicators that the earth is over 8,000 years old

    ? Some bristlecone pine trees in the White-Inyo mountain range of California date back beyond 2000 BCE. One, labeled "Methuselah" germinated in 2726 BCE, centuries before the date that conservative Christians assign to the Noahic flood. But their tree rings have been matched with those of dead trees; this shows that the latter germinated about 6000 BCE, which predates the year 4004 BCE by 2 millennia.

    ? In the Green River there are varves (millions of annual layers of sediment) laid down over the past 20 million years.

    ? During each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake. Here, they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The result are alternating dark and light annual layers -- much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers; they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. This is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 millennia made by many creation scientists.

    ? Ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice.



    Indicators that the earth is much older than 10,000 years of age

    ? The Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a method of measuring the length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays stream into the atmosphere from all directions in outer space and break neutrons free when they collide with air molecules. When these neutrons hit rocks on the ground, they sometimes react with a tiny number of mineral atoms which create radioactive isotopes. At sea level, a few hundred modified atoms are created each year in a gram of quartz which is near the surface of the ground. New measuring techniques can detect very small numbers of these atoms and thus estimate the number of years that the rocks have been exposed. Scientists have found ages of about 8,500 years for "recent" glacial moraines in Newfoundland and 830,000 years for extinct volcanoes in Nevada.

    ? The "nuclide" argument is one of the best proofs of an "old earth". Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that:
    Every nuclide with a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth.
    All Nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels.

    The only logical explanation for these observations is that the world formed billions of years ago. There are enough long-lived nuclides still around to be still detectable. The short-lived nuclides have long since decayed and disappeared. The only exceptions to the latter are short lived nuclides which are being continuously generated by the decay of long-lived nuclides.

    ? Because of tides, the rotation of the earth is gradually slowing, by about 1 second every 50,000 years. About 380 million years ago, each day would have been very close to 22 hours long! There would have been about 398 days in the year. Studies of rings on rugose coral fossils that were independently estimated to be 370 million years old revealed that when they were alive, there were about 400 days in the year. This relationship has been confirmed with other coral fossils. This is rather good evidence that the world was in existence a third of a billion years ago.

    ? The th
  11. Peez Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Fat_Fett:
    Hinduism does encourage killing. Where's the proof, you ask?
    Well, there's a little bit of land called Kashmir that should be basic knowledge for anyone who has passed Freshmen level World History. Muslims and Hindus have killed over this land for 100's of years, and they obviously are not restrained by their religions.
    LOL!!! What ignorance! What arrogance!! Muslims have killed, so Islam must encourage killing. Hindus have killed, so their religion must encourage killing. Christian have killed, so... oh but that is different! Give me a break.
    If you knew even the slightest bit of information on Christianity, you WOULD know that there is more than one denomination. Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Charismatic, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Non-denominational are just a few of the hundreds of Christian denominations.
    Yup, they just cannot seem to agree on what that infallible book actually says. Funny, that.
    Different evolutionary theories abound.
    In your imagination, perhaps, but you don't even know one.
    Some believe that evolution is linear, others believe it is not. Some believe that evolution continues in all animals today, others believe that some animals (crocodile, turtles) no longer evolve. Some evolutionists believe in the big bang, and others do not.
    Some believe in Santa Clause, some do not. What is your point?What is "linear" evolution? Name an evolutionary biologist who thinks that evolution is not occurring today. Name an evolutionary biologist who thinks that all animals (or other life forms, for that matter) are evolving morphologically. Name an evolutionary biologist who thinks that crocodiles or turtles have "stopped evolving." I think that you are making all this up.
    And you believe that evolution is right because your "all knowing" scientists say so?
    No, I think that evolution is right because of the masses and masses of evidence for it and the complete lack of evidence against it.
    And now we have Peez saying I shouldn't assume that a soul exists! Has 9/11 faded out of your minds so quickly?
    I can only imagine in what twisted way you think that the barbaric attack of September 11th (driven by religious fervour) provides evidence of a soul, however that is entirely irrelevant. With or without a soul, we evolved.
    The reason for this "echo" in space is not from the Big Bang theory. When God spoke and said "let there be light," He created by merely SPEAKING! This "echo" is the result of that sudden energy.
    LOL!!! Please tell me that you are fooling! :D You are being a caricature of an idiotic creationist.
    Or do you have more than one fact to back you up? That radiation and "echo" do not point to either Evolution or Creation flat out. Any one can claim what they believe to be true. I'm staking my claim on God. Explain to me again how the Big Bang Theory better explains this.
    It couldn't do worse, that's for sure.
    I'm still awaiting your answer to how primordial soup is somehow a good, scientific hypothesis.
    I know of no way in which the "Primordial Soup" plays a part in evolution, so I cannot answer you. For that matter, I have no idea how an adjective-noun pair like "Primordial Soup" could possibly be an hypothesis of any kind.
    What, you mean you don't know?
    What I don't know is what you are talking about.
    Seems like somebody is basing their beliefs in the truths of science on faith......
    I know of no "truths" in science to base on anything.
    If you believe what Evolutionists say, you have faith in what they say.
    You are losing what little sense you were making.
    Didn't you say that faith and science can't co-exist?
    Nope, you seem to have made that up too. There are many scientists who have fait
  12. Peez Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Fat_Fett:
    Ender, if my argument is so old.................why haven't you said anything about primordial soup.
    I think that Fat_Fett must be hungry, with this fixation on "Primordial Soup." So, what would you like us to say about "Primordial Soup"?
    If it is such an old argument, an answer should be easy. That post has been there for about 2 hours, and still no one has the answer.
    What argument? You just keep saying "Primordial Soup, Primordial Soup," where is the argument and/or the relevance?
    If you can't answer that questions, you can throw your whole theory out the window.
    What question? How is this unknown question going to cast doubt on a theory of evolution (you did say that there were a bunch of them, didn't you?[/b][/blockquote]How can you argue how life has changed when you don't even know how life started?[/b][/blockquote]Why is this a problem Let's agree, just for argument's sake, that a powerful, supernatural being created life. Now, what is the problem with evolution?

    Peez
  13. sleazo Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    Hey fat fett, maybe instead of visiting various websites you should open a book. And i dont mean the bible.
  14. Peez Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Fat_Fett:
    Hinduism has millions of gods.
    LOL!!! :D Right, you're the expert.
    Who knows which is the right god? Who knows which god is the right form?
    And you have such a solid grasp of pantheism too! Amazing.
    "God must have a big mouth." Your lack of the basic concept of God still amazes me. He encompasses the whole universe! He is omnipotent, omnipowerful, and omnipresent!
    Oh, now I get it! Sorry, I thought you were talking about the not- so-powerful god next to him. My mistake.
    <much very valuable text snipped out>
    Peez, what are you talking about?
    Your obvious lack of understanding and of evidence.
    We have posted our evidence.
    You have posted no empirical evidence that I am aware of. By all means show me to be wrong by pointing it out.
    Somehow, our evidence is incorrect and you are instantly right!
    You have to have evidence before we can comment on it.
    If you want to be scientific, you are supposed to be objectionable!
    I find you objectionable, that's for sure.
    I find it hilarious that no one has anything to say in defense of evolution from my post from about 2 hours ago. You don't have an answer to my questions, so you decide to ignore them altogether!
    I have tried to address any questions about evolution that I have seen. If I missed one or more, please point them out.
    Somehow, I have an answer for all these questions and comments thrown at me from 3 different people in a short amount of time, and about 5 of you can't even come up with anything in the timespan of 2 hours to compete with my arguments!
    I have yet to see you answer a question, but I may have missed a few. Certainly there are plenty of questions that you have not even touched, much less answered.
    Is it possible that Evolution doesn't have the answers.....or worse: that Evolution ACTUALLY contradicts itself? GASP!
    <knock knock> Anybody home? Helooooo?
    The only thing you can say is (each and every post, might I add) that I am ignorant to the "facts" of evolution!
    the "only thing" I can say? You are lying, as you must know that I (and others) have said a great deal more. As for saying that you are "ignorant of the facts of evolution," I do not believe that I have ever said that, let alone in every post. If I am wrong, by all means point it out.
    Good gosh, at least I address the topic!
    That is questionable.
    You guys are being even worse than hypocrites!
    That is laughable, coming from you.
    I AM STILL WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO ANSWER ME ON MY POST ABOUT PRIMORDIAL SOUP!
    For goddess' sake, go have something to eat!
    You TRY to cast me down by repeatedly using the same comments that I am ignorant, close-minded, etc.
    These are not arguments, though they are apparently true.
    "Do or do not, there is no try."
    Hmmmmmm... Sorry, cannot get the connection.
    Can you even tell me why I am not getting an answer, or even a RESPONSE, on what I proposed about the primordial soup.
    If you are worried about the "two hour" thing, I am not on-line for at least 20 hours of each day, as I have a life. Deal with it.
    You all must be in shock. These other arguments are extremely weak.
    It is true that your ignorance, arrogance, and dishonesty does shock me. s for the "other arguments," which ones are those?

    Peez
  15. Peez Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Fat_Fett:
    Ha ha. They WEREN'T Christians! Every religion goes through a corruption at least once in its existence! Look at modern day Islam....compare it to the grand Islam before the 1700's.
    Well, he is predictable. So, Fat_Fett, have you not considered the possibility that the Muslims and Hindus that were reported to be killing people WEREN'T really Muslims and Hindus?
    People are not perfect, no matter what religion they belong to.
    Yup, and that applies to all the religions and to atheism as well. Get it?

    Peez
  16. Lord Bane Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    May 26, 1999
    star 5
    O-kay, Peez bAND Fat_Fett have warranted themselves 48hr bans for blatant flaming of others, and this thread is locked until further notice.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.