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

Ki,

You don't wait, you go after. With everything you've got, heart and mind, but most importantly, honesty. Find time to honestly talk to the Lord, in Jesus name, as though He were your best friend and truest confidant...just be honest. If you've doubts tell the Lord, but seek His face, not His hand. Seek Him, as you would have someone that would love you seek you. Just talking.
Start there...that's what I was told to do by a stranger. I have no way of thanking that man, but one day in Heaven...so I pass it to you.


This is digressing from the thread topic, but it's far more important.

 

What's the matter with this thread? Everytime it starts a new page, it doesn't show it!

 

What's the matter with this thread? Everytime it starts a new page, it doesn't show it!

That's what happens when you're only given seven days to create it.

 

ok how is evolution observable and how can a replicate it?
It is observable. Is has been observed that bacteria are becoming stronger to antibiotics

How do you think they creates supervirus in biochemical labs. They know by spraying viruses with massive those of anti-virus, only the strongest survive and reproduces, and they get a stronger antivirus and so on until you get a formidable doses of supervirus. Someone brought it up a few pages back with more details.

If we can do these things, its because we know how evolution works. We may not know everything, but we can use what's predictable. Like gravity, we may not know how it works, but we can predict where a rock will land when thrown

 

Jamie!

 

It is observable. Is has been observed that bacteria are becoming stronger to antibiotics

This is only proof of the tired phrase "survival of the fittest", which I think most creationists usually don't have a problem with.

This does NOT, and I mean, does NOT prove that humans evolved from apes and gorillas.

To prove that is impossible.

 

First, men doesn't evolved from modern apes and gorillas: everything indicates that they have a common, long ago extinct ancestor.

Second, it appears to me, Viper, that no matter what we say will be enough for you. Peez has constantly said that in science there is no definite proof, and you come again and again demanding such.

And third, you are probably wanting some tangible evidence that birds evolved from reptiles, and reptiles from fishes, or something alike? You want to see it happening before your very eyes? I am afraid you'll have to expand your life a few millions of years to observe similar thing.

 

You want to see it happening before your very eyes? I am afraid you'll have to expand your life a few millions of years to observe similar thing.

1.21 Jiggawatts?!?

1.21 JIGGAWATTS!!!?!!!
(runs out of room tripping over boxes)

 

That living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors is a scientific fact.

There are people who would argue against this....*SMILE*

 

First, men doesn't evolved from modern apes and gorillas: everything indicates that they have a common, long ago extinct ancestor.

That's what I meant. Whether or not we have a common ancestor is not the point.

Second, it appears to me, Viper, that no matter what we say will be enough for you. Peez has constantly said that in science there is no definite proof, and you come again and again demanding such.

I see myself as very open minded to things, but not willing to swallow everything that I hear without questioning it.

That said, all I am saying about the "proof" arguements is that I am tired of "evolutionist" (i know, i know, is that like a gravitist? /sarcasm) beliefs being crammed down my throat as if it is fact.

Since this happens, I therefore demand proof, which is highly inadequate.

The way I would teach this, is i would say here are the theories: you have evolution, big bang, creation, etc. Then, here is the evidence for each: blah, blah. Then someone should say, what do you think? Some discussion would happen. We'd all learn a little about every theory, and then we would be capable of making our own decision.

Yet, I do not see that happening (in schools, in case you missed what I was saying). In schools it is all evolution as if it were irrefutable fact, without even a glance at the other theories.

And third, you are probably wanting some tangible evidence that birds evolved from reptiles, and reptiles from fishes, or something alike? You want to see it happening before your very eyes? I am afraid you'll have to expand your life a few millions of years to observe similar thing.

Granted I usually have to see before I believe. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't see the "evidence". Maybe you haven't been listening. I, for the most part, believe in bits and pieces of the evolutionary theory. I just see flaws here and there that are never really adequately explained. Hence, I have a natural tendency to not trust the theory as fact.

 

There are also people who argue that the Earth is flat.

 

There are also people who argue that the Earth is flat.

Another one of those arguements that really go nowhere, as we have satelittes that have actually proven to us that the earth is round.

 

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

O.K., I have here The Sciences: An Integrated Approach, Fourth Edition (James Trefil and Robert M. Hazen, 2004, John Whiley and Sons Inc.). From the glossary:

law of nature An overarching statement of how the universe works, following repeated and rigorous observation and testing of a theory of group of theories.

theory A description of the world that covers a relatively large number of phenomena and has met many observational and experimental tests. A conclusion based upon observations of nature.

From chapter 1:

Once we have summarized and experimental and observational results, we can form a hypothesis - a tentative educated guess - about how the world works. In the case of our everyday experience with falling objects, this hypothesis could be very simple. We could say, "When I drop something, it falls."...

A theory is a desription of the world that covers a relatively large number of phenomena and has met many observational and experimental tests. After observing hundreds of dropped objects, for example, we could state a theory such as, "In the absence of wind resistance, all objects fall a distance proportinal to the square of the time they fall."...

In science, every hypothesis and theory must be tested by using them to make predictions about how a particular system will behave, then observing nature to see if the system behaves as predicted. If we hypothesize that all objects fall when they are dropped, for example, then that idea can be tested by drpping all sorts of objects. Each drop constitutes a test of our prediction, and the more successful tests we perform, the more confidence we have that the hypothesis is correct...

When a theory or group of related theories has been tested extensively and seems to apply everywhere in the universe, when we have enough experience with it to have a lot of confidence that it is true, we generally elevate the theory to a new status. We call it a law of nature...

We will never stop questioning the validity of our hypotheses, theories, or laws of nature.

I don't happen to agree with the precise definitions that the two authors are using, perhaps because I am a biologist and they are a physicist and a geologist (we have different focuses), but if it wil help settle semantic issues I am willing to go with their definitions. Do you accept the definitions that these authors give?

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.

I have read extensively at ICR's web site, and I have yet to find any sign of such research. If you have, why not point it out?

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.

O.K., here is a biology book: Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Douglas J. Futuyma, 1998, Sinauer Associates Inc). From chapter 1:

In light of the preceding discussion, evolution is a scientific fact. But it is explained by scientific theory.

How about providing us with a reference that supports your position?

Scientists certainly do speculate, but they then test their speculations

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

How about all those other scientists who would just love to make a name for themselves by disproving a widely-accepted idea? Scientists are often very competative. When one scientist publishes his/her work, other scientists che

 

"Also you can prove the LAW of gravity

Pick an object up and drop it."

Yes, but why does it fall? How does gravity make it fall? We don't know. The existence and occurance of gravity is fact. How and why it occurs is theory. Similar with evolution. That it occurs is fact. How it occurs is the theory.

 

That living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors is a scientific fact.
Darth_Viper81:
There are people who would argue against this....*SMILE*

Of course there are. There are also people who would argue with a roughly spherical earth being a fact, with gravity always making things fall down being a fact, with the earth orbiting the sun being a fact, etc.


Peez

 

There are also people who argue that the Earth is flat.
Darth_Viper81:
Another one of those arguements that really go nowhere, as we have satelittes that have actually proven to us that the earth is round.

That is not proof.

What about photographs of the Earth from the moon?
Most of these are fake. It is well known that the "moon landing" was faked. The film of what is claimed to be the moon was taken in the desert in the US state of Arizona.
There exist some genuine photographs from high altitudes, which appear to the untrained eye to show a spherical Earth. The reason for this effect is that the Earth's atmosphere becomes denser the further one ascends, after thinning out at about 5 miles. This causes light to be refracted more at high altitudes, giving the appearance of a spherical Earth.
The reason the atmosphere becomes denser is the increased pressure. If not for this extreme pressure, the sun, and all stars, would not be able to hold together but would gradually dissipate in accordance with the gas laws, and Brownian motion (see any basic school physics text). Further proof that there is atmosphere all the way between the earth and the sun, moon, etc, is that heat from the sun warms the earth. Heat cannot travel through a vacuum, as anyone who has ever used a vacuum flask knows. Real astronauts would need pressure suits to protect them from the incredibly high pressures they would encounter.

(from The Flat Earth Society[/link)


Peez

 

Most of these are fake. It is well known that the "moon landing" was faked. The film of what is claimed to be the moon was taken in the desert in the US state of Arizona.


PLease please please tell me that was legit!


In which case I'll respond by saying

"NO! Not the desert in Arizona, but the the old Warner Brothers Soundstage where John Huston produced The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)"

 

[On evolution:] its in nature eh? sounds like a creationist arguement.

Because of course scientists don't believe in nature.


Wha~!?

 

If anyone wants to learn about chromosome2 fusion, then please read this. Note how creationists seem to ignore the whole topic.

 

Brooks, What happened to the mathematical impossibility or possibility of evolution? Can you tell us how we can calculate them?

 

Thanks, Vagrant.

 

How can the devil be in me? I thought he was in Ms. Jones?


(bowh-chicka-chicka-bown)

Plenty o'laughs!
If God created everything, why did he create Lucifer Beeleebub Mephistophiles Jagger (woo-woo, pleased to meet you) Satan?

And why pick on the poor goat to use as a reference?

And what's the deal with the platypus?

Does god love great white sharks, too?

 

Platypuses are TRULEY bizzaro creatures...

* The males have poison like a snake in spurs on their hind legs. The poison can kill a dog and cause extreme pain in people.

*The mother's milk comes out through glands on her skin and the babies lick it off of her fur.

Methinks that IF there is a god, he/she/it was sampling some of his/her/its other creations at the time...

It's an evolutionary freakshow....

 

* The males have poison like a snake in spurs on their hind legs. The poison can kill a dog and cause extreme pain in people.

Jumping Jesus! Are you serious? I never knew that. My God, what a freak!!!

 

Saint of Killers, you're mocking me, and I think that's against forum rules.

It also says in the new rules that moderating is the job of moderators and only moderators, Darth Brooks.

Darth_Viper, you are hung up on survival of the fittest. It's hardly essential to evolutionary theory; just to Darwinism.

E_S