***The Great Debate: Creation vs Evolution***

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth_Viper81, Aug 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Blue_Jedi33:
    I complile my research and use it to make people think about what they already know.
    What would really make people think is if you could provide some evidence against evolution, or some problem with the evidence for evolution, or some evidence for creationism, or some way in which creationism could be scientifically tested.
    Make no mistake, this issue gets down to;

    Did physical life orginate by chance in the universe or did a spirit being create it?
    There is a third possibility: or did life arise due to the deterministic properties of matter? In any event, my answer is: I do not know.
    That is the debate, you argue branchs if you want to, but really it's an all or nothing debate for me.

    None of this half creation, half evolution stuff.
    Except that, no matter what the answer to your question, we might still disagree about evolution.

    Peez
  2. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Darth_Viper81:
    Anyways. The more I read these discussions, the more I realize that the reason there is so much controversy is that they are two completely separate topics.

    Creation deals more with origin of life, and according to Peez, evolution does nothing to explain that.

    The problem is, that if you push Creation to the side. Forget about it. Pretend like there is no such theory as creation. No God, no divine plan, no nothing.
    As Spike_Spiegal pointed out, there are different sorts of creationists. I believe that most people here who would identify themselves as creationists believe that a god created each species more or less the way they are found today. This view is not required to believe in a god, or in a divine plan.

    For example, one might believe that the universe is all there is, that there is no supernatural, that life originated due to natural processes, that living things evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors, and that the mechanism was essentially mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. This is what many creationists think of when they say "evolutionist."

    Instead, one might believe that a god created the universe especially for us, and specifically created this system and this world, and created the first life here, and yet still accept that living things evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors, and that the mechanism was essentially mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. There are many people who fall into this category, "evolutionists" who are also religious.

    Or one might believe that a god created the universe especially for us, and specifically created this system and this world, and created the first life here, and guided the evolution of that life, and yet still accept that living things evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors. This is sometimes called "theistic evolution."

    One might believe that a god created the universe especially for us, and specifically created this system and this world, and created all life pretty much as we see it today, though some small amount of evolution (within "kinds") might occur. These are the typical Christian creationists.
    Now, simply take a look at the evolutionary theory without the bias of creation clouding your vision.

    With that said, evolution is still a flawed theory. Keep in mind I am not discounting the entire evolutionary theory. I don't doubt for a minute that things have changed since this world "began", or more accurately, since LIFE began.

    However, evolution, regardless of the few here who keep spouting "No it doesn't" without really backing it up, evolution has been taken as a substitute for creation.
    It depends on what you mean by "a substitute for creation." Creationism typically is much more broad than evolutionary biology. Creationism typically includes the creation of the universe, the creation of the earth, the creation of specific geographic and geologic features of the earth, the creation of life, the essentially unchanging nature of life, and the spiritual nature of humans. Evolution may be seen as a "substitute" for "the essentially unchanging nature of life," but no other aspect of creationism.
    Don't believe me. Talk to an atheist. Ask him where the world came from. Nine times out of ten he will tell you "evolution". Why? Because, regardless of whether or not evolution is ACTUALLY trying to explain the very beginnings of this universe or life, most people, at least every teach I've encountered thus far, teach it as a source of beginning of existence. And I mean, EVERY teacher I've had has been consistent, regardless of whether it's true or not.
    I can only surmise that you have had a bad string of incompetent teachers, which is a sad commentary on the state of education. That being said, I encourage you to contact ten university science professors and put the question to them. Don't assume that you will get a particular answer.
    S
  3. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    EloZuZ:
    Evolution is a great THEORY, but its just that.
    Evolution is both a fact and a theory. That living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution explains the mechanisms by which this occurred, but it is not a "theory" in the sense of an unsupported guess. Rather it is a scientific theory: a complex of interconnected statements that explains a range of facts.
    Creationism is great too... but there is no imperical evidence, only faith.
    I will reserve judgement on how "great" creationism is, but it is not a scientific theory precisely because there is no empirical evidence and cannot ever be.
    I feel like the truth lies in each theory. Everyone has a piece of the truth, but we will never arrive at the truth at our state of being. We've just not evolved enough to know... like i said before, about 12% of our brains we use, we can't find the cure for the common cold, we still have NO IDEA where Osama bin Laden or Saddam are... but we have the comsic question answered? I doubt it.
    There certainly are limits to our knowledge and understanding of the universe, but note that the ?we use X% of our brain" thing is an urban legend.

    Peez
  4. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Cheveyo:
    But I don't believe, 201, anyone is saying evolution is fact. It has thus far been accurately called a "theory".
    That living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors is a scientific fact. I have explained this earlier, and here is what Douglas J. Futuyma (Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition) says:
    In light of the preceding discussion, evolution is a scientific fact. But it is explained by evolutionary theory.


    Peez
  5. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Jedi_Master201:
    Not so. I think you should take a look back.

    Several - including: QuanarReg, Singularity (I think), and many others - have proclaimed it as fact, and an undeniable one at that. It has not been proved, despite what they claim.
    As I have explained, nothing in science is ever proved (in the sense of established beyond all doubt). That the earth orbits the sun has not been proved. That atoms exist has not been proved. That the universe even exists has not been proved. Science works with evidence, and the evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the earth orbits the sun, that atoms exist, and that living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors.

    Peez
  6. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Jedi_Master201:
    Those are too many assumptions for my taste.
    Such as...?

    Peez
  7. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    MasterKingsama:
    My major gripe in all of this is that people on both sides argue there case and act if only the otherside would be rational they would see the truth and convert.
    Not at all. I have specifically stated that we do not know, cannot know, with absolute certainty that evolution occurred. Science can only evaluate the evidence available. That evidence clearly indicates that evolution has occurred, and nobody has presented any reason to doubt this. This most certainly does not mean that creationism is false. Creationism is not science, and so does not rise or fall on empirical evidence. Just because all the evidence points to evolution does not make it true. A supernatural entity could easily have provided all the evidence, even if it is misleading.
    When the fact of the matter is that no one truely knows what happened, cause guess what nobody was there.
    Actually, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, but in any event you don't need to see the snow fall to know that it did when you get up in the morning.
    What is happening is that two groups are taking the same experimentations and proper use of science and getting the same results, but haveing drastically different results.
    I disagree. Creationism is not based on any science. Christian creationists base their beliefs on the Bible, regardless of what science shows them (check out this Statement of Faith).
    Why is this? simple as humans we want to find out that we are right. Scientists on both sides are drwaing conclusions that are based on there own presupposings, biases, and agenda. What scientists have agenda, i would have never guessed.
    There are creationists who claim or imply that there is some kind of conspiracy among scientists to deny creationism. There is no evidence for this, and it is both rediculous and offensive.
    In the end evolution is still a theory,An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture,
    No. The word "theory" has a number of definitions, but the first in my Merriam Webster's dictionary is:
    the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
    This is the sense in which the theory of evolution is a theory. The set of facts that it seeks to analyse is that living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors.
    and creationist beliefs are still based on faith, Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
    I don't follow all of that, but creationism is certainly based on faith.
    History is full of ideas, theories, and faiths that people have sworn to be true, with evidence to back in them up. THat have later been seen to be false. THe problem with this one is that there is no way to prove, which can only be doen by observation and replicationm, at least until their is time travel, or after we die. SO to me it takes faith to believe in either, and both sides are so stuck in there presuppositions to admit it.

    Thats just my 2 cents,
    By the same argument we should not accept that the earth orbits the sun, or that atoms exist. Sure, these have not been proven beyond all doubt, but there is enough evidence that it would be fooling to deny them.

    Peez
  8. MasterKingsama Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2003
    star 4
    Peez if you dont fit into the catagory of most in my statement, than i wasnt talking to you. I have talked about this subject with many people, and although some are open to "no one really knows" idea most argue that the otherside is being ignorant and thinking illogically.

    secondly you are right, creationism is not science, it is a belief system, much the same way biological evolution is a belief system. and both sides are useing the scientific method to evaliate evidences to try and support their beleif system. For creationist their beliefs come from there holy rightings, whether that be the Koran, Bible, Torah, ect. For biological evolutionists their belief system comes from a book too, Charles Darvwin's.

    Also i agree with you that eye witnesses are unreliable, but observation is the key to converting a theory to a law. We can see that everytime you drop something it hits the ground ie gravity and until we see evolution, it remains theory, which is why it changes from day to day.

    As for the statement of faith i agree that creationist look to Holy Writtings for their beliefs, but evolutionists do the same, looking to conjecture from other scientists for theirs.

    As for

    By the same argument we should not accept that the earth orbits the sun, or that atoms exist. Sure, these have not been proven beyond all doubt, but there is enough evidence that it would be fooling to deny them

    False: because we can observe those things through microscopes and telescopes, as well as other proofs.
  9. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    and both sides are useing the scientific method to evaliate evidences to try and support their beleif system. For creationist their beliefs come from there holy rightings, whether that be the Koran, Bible, Torah, ect. For biological evolutionists their belief system comes from a book too, Charles Darvwin's.

    "This book says it, so I believe it"? That's your idea of the scientific method?

    There's infinitely more to the theory of evolution than Darwin's original writings. Why is that so hard to understand?
  10. Brahma Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2003
    much the same way biological evolution is a belief system.

    That some people "believe" in evolution despite not having clearly understood the evidence of it, or what evolutionary theory proposes, is unfortunate. However, there is a difference between the people who merely "believe" in evolution, and the scientists who actually study it.

    There are no scientific research papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that would demonstrate any attempt to study creation scientifically... All that exists is a belief, and a desire to manipulate the meanings of existing scientific research on evolution to suit that belief and consequently substitute an inference of creation in place of actual empirical evidence to support it.
  11. MasterKingsama Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2003
    star 4
    This book says it, so I believe it"? That's your idea of the scientific method?

    There's infinitely more to the theory of evolution than Darwin's original writings. Why is that so hard to understand?

    As there is two creation science. THey do research of there own.


    There are no scientific research papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that would demonstrate any attempt to study creation scientifically.

    There are published creationist journals too, they are just written off as poor science without any consideration, because people are dead set on theory being law and fact when it is still just a theory.


    All that exists is a belief, and a desire to manipulate the meanings of existing scientific research on evolution to suit that belief and consequently substitute an inference of creation in place of actual empirical evidence to support it.

    first of all creation scientist do do there own work. Secondly part of science in redoing the work of others and test it for reliablity. Thirdly inference is a key piece of the scientific method. Where do you think the theory of evolution came form? Darwin was observeing nature and infered a theory.


  12. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    MasterKingsama:
    Peez if you dont fit into the catagory of most in my statement, than i wasnt talking to you. I have talked about this subject with many people, and although some are open to "no one really knows" idea most argue that the otherside is being ignorant and thinking illogically.
    Many certainly take that approach, but I would argue that some are more justified than others.
    secondly you are right, creationism is not science, it is a belief system, much the same way biological evolution is a belief system.
    No, biological evolution is no more a belief system than is gravity.
    and both sides are useing the scientific method to evaliate evidences to try and support their beleif system.
    Please provide an example of a creationist trying to support their belief system using the scientific method.
    For creationist their beliefs come from there holy rightings, whether that be the Koran, Bible, Torah, ect. For biological evolutionists their belief system comes from a book too, Charles Darvwin's.
    I disagree. How many "biological evolutionists" have ever seen any of Darwin's books, much less read them? I have read parts of Origin of Species, but more for historical value. We know far more about evolution than Darwin did, and in fact there are topics on which Darwin was clearly wrong. If his writings were the basis for some belief system, how would we come to the conclusion that he was wrong about anything? The truth is that evolutionary biology rests on evidence, period. Darwin's writings are out of date, and rarely referenced today (when they are referenced, it is only because he was the originator of an idea, not because such a reference carries special weight).
    Also i agree with you that eye witnesses are unreliable, but observation is the key to converting a theory to a law.
    I believe that you are using the word "theory" in a different way than scientists use it. In science, there is nothing that could change a theory to a law. In science a theory is not a speculation that awaits evidence, it is an analysis of a set of facts, based on reasoning and evidence, that explains a variety of phenomena. No matter how much evidence is provided, it remains a theory. The status of being a theory does not imply a lack of support in science, it simply means that it is a complex of interconnected statements that provides a natural framework for understanding the universe. Not only that, but "evolution" is not only a theory, it is also a fact.
    We can see that everytime you drop something it hits the ground ie gravity and until we see evolution, it remains theory, which is why it changes from day to day.
    We can see evolution occur (I have), and we can see evidence that it has occurred. As for it changing from day to day, the core of the theory of evolution, that the characteristics of individuals change from generation to generation due to natural selection, has not changed at all in over 150 years.
    As for the statement of faith i agree that creationist look to Holy Writtings for their beliefs, but evolutionists do the same, looking to conjecture from other scientists for theirs.
    You have misunderstood. Creationists start with a conclusion, and then will not change their minds regardless of the evidence. The Statement of Faith at AiG makes this clear. Scientists, on the other hand, look to the evidence to decide whether a hypothesis should be accepted or rejected. Scientists certainly do speculate, but they then test their speculations. They do not use the speculations of other scientists as data, in fact they attempt to disprove the speculations and even the tested hypotheses of other scientists. This is how science progresses.
    As for

    By the same argument we should not accept that the earth orbits the sun, or that atoms exist. Sure, these have not been proven beyond all doubt, bu
  13. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    As there is two creation science. THey do research of there own.


    I've seen creation "science" research, they think the Grand Canyon was formed from a flood. [face_laugh] Man, I want whatever they're smoking.
  14. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    MasterKingsama:
    As there is two creation science. THey do research of there own.
    I have been unable, after many attempts, to find any sign of primary scientific research performed by creationists on creationism. If you could provide an example, I would be grateful.
    There are no scientific research papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that would demonstrate any attempt to study creation scientifically.
    Nor are there any such papers concerned with the tooth fairy. Neither is science.
    There are published creationist journals too, they are just written off as poor science without any consideration, because people are dead set on theory being law and fact when it is still just a theory.
    They are written off because the scientific method is not used. I have explained the use the the word "theory" in science.
    All that exists is a belief, and a desire to manipulate the meanings of existing scientific research on evolution to suit that belief and consequently substitute an inference of creation in place of actual empirical evidence to support it.
    Please provide us with an example.
    first of all creation scientist do do there own work. Secondly part of science in redoing the work of others and test it for reliablity. Thirdly inference is a key piece of the scientific method. Where do you think the theory of evolution came form? Darwin was observeing nature and infered a theory.
    Creation "scientists" ignore any finding that seems to contadict their beliefs. Scientists specifically try to prove their hypotheses false, and only when repeated attempts have failed do they accept them. We have tested hypotheses from Darwin's theory of evolution again and again, and the theory continues to stand up. The hypothesis that all life on earth has evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors has been tested literally millions of times, and has never been falsified. This is why it is considered a scientific fact.

    Peez
  15. MasterKingsama Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2003
    star 4
    Many certainly take that approach, but I would argue that some are more justified than others


    Argeed, but on both sides of the argument.


    No, biological evolution is no more a belief system than is gravity

    False, pick up any basic science book and look at the definition of Law and Theory.

    Also you can prove the LAW of gravity

    Pick an object up and drop it.
    No one can prove evolution, or GOD for that matter.


    Please provide an example of a creationist trying to support their belief system using the scientific method

    Go to http://www.icr.org/ they have thousands of published studies.

    As for my point about Darwins books, you missed it, and that may be because I wasn?t clear. My point is that they both are just trying to justify their beliefs, presuppositions, biases. And if you doubt that you just arent being honest. And I don?t want to hear about how they are chasing the truth, wouldn?t want you sounding like a creationist.

    Not only that, but "evolution" is not only a theory, it is also a fact.

    Again theory is based on inference, and theories are not Laws, nor facts, again see a biology book.

    Scientists certainly do speculate, but they then test their speculations

    Again denying scientific bias, and agendas, which everyone has.



    I am not trying to convert anyone, just trying to get people to understand evolution is not a fact, untell it becomes the sceintific Law of evoltution. And that wont happen till it is observed, which if you argue that it has, u are dillusional.
  16. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    2nd grade speak will do you good, the law of gravity is a misnomer. People still don't know how gravity works. ;)

    ICR is a baaaad source. They go bass ackwards with their "science".
  17. MasterKingsama Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2003
    star 4
    FID

    glad that you see can dicuss things with out acting like a child.
  18. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    That's because I'm not taking this debate too seriously. I know what I believe, evolution exists and I've even studied it, not at great length, mind you, that stuff gets boring for me. The LAW of gravity is something you learn in the second grade, it's a misnomer because no one knows exactly how gavity works, hence it's a scientific THEORY. Not "guess". That's where most creationists go wrong because they have this silly notion that "theory" means "guess" which it doesn't.
  19. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    ICR is a baaaad source. They go bass ackwards with their "science".

    Yes but they have thousands of published studies. Surely that means they know best.

  20. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Hah! Yeah, just because you know how to make your printing company work overtime doesn't mean you know anything.
  21. MasterKingsama Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2003
    star 4
    point one, i never made the statement that quantity means quality. Just a reference to see the scientific method at play in creations.

    Point 2. Never argued that theory was just a guess. Argued that it is still based in conjucture. Also never argued that gravity was explainable. argued that you can observe gravity at work, as well as replicate this observation. those are two of the reasons that it is a law, not a theory. Evolution is not observable, nor replicatable.

  22. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    point one, i never made the statement that quantity means quality. Just a reference to see the scientific method at play in creations.


    No one ever said you did, we're just mocking that site and that group. They're funny, and they're bass ackwards when it comes to their work.



    oint 2. Never argued that theory was just a guess. Argued that it is still based in conjucture. Also never argued that gravity was explainable. argued that you can observe gravity at work, as well as replicate this observation. those are two of the reasons that it is a law, not a theory. Evolution is not observable, nor replicatable.


    It's a law? If so, can astronauts be brought up on charges for breaking the law of gravity?

    Theory doesn't mean guess, and that's essentially what you're arguing whether you do it intentionally or not.


    Evolution is not observable, nor replicatable.

    Science books, like milk, do the body good.
  23. MasterKingsama Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2003
    star 4
    ok how is evolution observable and how can a replicate it?
  24. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    ok how is it observable, and replicatable?

    Can you replicate a black hole in a lab? How about a sun? How about a planet?

    My point to that absurd question is that just because humans cannot replicate something in nature does not mean it doesn't exist in nature.

    Give us time. We can clone a sheep and a horse. In time, we'll be able to duplicate evolution. ;)

    In the meantime, evolution does exist in nature. You can't dispute that.

  25. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    How do you replicate something that's in nature? Can you replicate creation? Are there still people who believe in creation? Hell yes. Do they have any evidence to back it up? **** no. And the "evidence" they do have is pretty **** poor.


    Can you replicate a black hole in a lab? How about a sun? How about a planet?


    Actually the black hole thing they're trying to replicate.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.