How did we get where we are today? Evolution v. Creationism...

Religion isn't based on objective reasoning and at best in this debate can just point out thing that Scientists don't know yet, never mind the fact that the evidence of Creationism still stands at an impressive zero and it's beliefs will never change or conform to new discoveries the way science does. Just accept that you are worshipping a mythological text and move on. I don?t see anyone trying to somehow justify the existence of Zeus. Let?s go climb Mt. Olympus and see if he?s there, and when we don?t find him, all their followers will try to argue he was just hiding and doubt our 'being able to see things' technique. Oh wait but that religion is no longer popular so we don?t have to waste time explaining why they?re wrong.

If you do believe in God, I don't see why you wouldn't just see how the Universe was designed to unfold perfectly from the big bang without any interference or tampering. I guess it contradicts the Bible and so people forgo thinking.

 

You only say that because you just can't accept that Young Earth Creationism is more than just religion. The people at AIG are scientists. You can't say they aren't simply because their scientific conclusions about origins differ from the popular mainstream conclusions.

I'm not arguing against carbon dating. I'm just trying to explain that the people who try and use carbon and radiometric dating to explain their belief in millions of years don't do it as objectively as they claim.

Of course. The same way you have to first believe that the earth is billions of years old to believe in evolution.

The Egyptians lived shortly after that time.

After taking a look at that article, I guess that particular theory might have some flaws. Heck, even the article at AIG did have a warning at the end of it about quickly jumping to the conclusion that it's true just because it sounds so great. However, I'm not going to so quickly dismiss it. I did a little checking through the some other articles at reasons.org and found out that they're a long-age universe group. They believe that the big bang really did happen, and that the flood was just local, as well as some other things. So of course they're going to reject the new cosmology theory because it's a young earth theory.

Believe it or not, neither is evolutionism.

There's far more evidence for it than you're willing to accept.

That's true of it's foundational beliefs (creation shortly before 4000 B.C., the great flood, etc), but there is not any evidence to conclusively disprove it. Non-foundational beliefs on the other hand (like all the scientific "How did it happen?s"), are potential to change in light of new evidence.

 

That's probably because there is no such thing as "evolutionism". It's not a religion, it's a scientific theory based on empirical evidence.

So what you're telling me, just to be clear, is that there is no conclusive evidence against creation happening shortly before 4000 B.C.? If the answer is "yes", I'm done posting here because there is no way someone on the internet could help you get over a hump of ignorance that big.

 

You only say that because you just can't accept that Young Earth Creationism is more than just religion.

No, I say that because AIG does not have actaul evidence to back up its claims.

You can't say they aren't simply because their scientific conclusions about origins differ from the popular mainstream conclusions.

They don't use scientific conclusions.

Of course. The same way you have to first believe that the earth is billions of years old to believe in evolution.

It's not a question of belief, it's a question of evidence.

They believe that the big bang really did happen, and that the flood was just local, as well as some other things. So of course they're going to reject the new cosmology theory because it's a young earth theory.

They are going ot reject young creation theory because they do not have evidence. I also call foul for something being called a theory that is not in fact a theory.

Believe it or not, neither is evolutionism.

If the Theory of Evolution was not based on scientific reasoning and evidence it would not be a Theory and not taught in schools.

There's far more evidence for it than you're willing to accept.

Zero. None. There is no evidence for creationism. Not one bit. If there is then produce some for us. Seeing as how the "scientists" at AIG cannot produce any I doubt you will either.

 

Creationism,but I`m not going to go as far as saying that God put dinosaur bones to test faith.

 

I voted for Evolution. But I really think it's a bit of both. I think that evolution was guided by a diving being.

 

Would this great diving being be Peter Kay?

[image=http://www.visit4info.com/sitecontent/LG/fullZZZZZZTVWCL0502190305PIC.jpg]

 

I believe that evolution firmly existed, the evidence is to great to deny. I do though believe that something had to create that particle that exploded in the Big Bang to form the universe. I believe that some kind of "god" created that particle and started off the Big Bang. I think that "god" does not play a very active role in the workings of Earth and lets other forces, like evolution, go on unbridled.

 

I believe that evolution firmly existed, the evidence is too great to deny.


That's exactly the kind of idea that most people today are thoroughly indoctrinated with. They don't believe it because they themselves have actually seen the evidence, or even know what most of it is, they just accept it because everyone says it's true, so therefore it must be true.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp

Zero. None. There is no evidence for creationism. Not one bit. If there is then produce some for us. Seeing as how the "scientists" at AIG cannot produce any I doubt you will either.

To respond to this and the previous quote, the evidence is the same for both Creation and Evolution. It's how people interpret it that matters.

[image=http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/images/252EvidencewarEarth.jpg]

[image=http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/images/252Evidencewar3.jpg]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4403news11-13-2000.asp

 

By the way, that site disproves theories about Earth's age, not about evolution. Evolution can theoretically take place on a smaller scale. And just because there's too little helium in the air, it doesn't mean that the Earth is young.

 

To respond to this and the previous quote, the evidence is the same for both Creation and Evolution. It's how people interpret it that matters.

Yes, and skewing your interpretations so that you always reach the same conclusions is not scientific, nor does it prove anything. At all.

 

I realise that this debate has gone on for some time, but I'm going to have to remind you guys that this is Census, not The Senate. I'm overjoyed that people have started discussion in here, but if it continues to be a back-and-forth between a handful of users I'm going to have to ask you to take it to the Senate Creationism/Evolution thread.

 

I was wondering when a mod would get here.

But yeah, take it to PMs.

 

Creationism.

 

Evolution for me. Although I don't believe in the currently accepted theory of human evolution, because it doesn't address all the evidence and there's valid evidence suggesting that humans are far older than the theory allows us to be.

 

Okay, so since you don't ignore anything in the bible, I take it you don't shave or let your wife speak in church?

 

Evolution ... nuff said.

 

Why are you dancing there Creationism? I just pushed your joke down another full percent.

 

Evolution.

 

Creationism.

"In the beginning, there was a mountain, a tree, and a midget."

Flying Spaghetti Monster FTW

 

Creationism/Science

Rick McCallum thinks you're mentally deranged!

 

Evolution, I used to believe in God, before I actually started thinking about my belief instead of just believing it.

 

creationsim for me