Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[Unchecked Expansion]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

What sort of loving god would make people like that?
If you're argument in favour of god is that people are badly designed, you must hate god.

[ReVaQ]

Spending time to debate/argue against Creationism & its "followers" is just plain bullocks. You will just waste time and energy.

If you want to end a debate such as this quickly, then show the evidence that support evolution then ask which evidence support Creationism. If they refer to a book, then refer them to The Flying Spaghetti.

THE F- END.

[The Republic of Legantus]

Disclaimer: Yes, I believe in God, just not Creationism in any form. I am normally a very open person when it comes to listening and understanding other's opinions. However, this (Creationism) is one of the only two things I will NOT accept without definitive prof (the other being the Ancient Alien theory). If you are a creationist, I do not hate your opinion, I just think its wrong.

No offense to creationists, but there are three reasons why modern science has proved you wrong:

1) The Fossil Record: We have confirmed thousands of animals who have lived and died thousands and millions of years in the past. Unless you expect me to believe all of that is ether animals who died thousands of years ago who's bones were turned to stone by God to "Test" us or that it is perfectly normal for animals to turn to stone when they die (Which has been proven not to happen, BTW) there is no argument you could use to sway me on this point. Also, we have found ancestors of modern animals and even humans.

2) Geologic record: We have animals, plants, and even types of stone appearing on different continents in the same forms. We also have stone dated to several billion years ago. And the fact that Again, unless you can definitively prove that God is "Testing our faith" with this, you cannot sway me on this.

3) Human Civilization: We have been WRITING longer than 6,000 years. More than twice that, actually. Not counting all of the settlements we have found that have dated to later. And the bones and mummified remains we have found that also date to much later.

[Farnhamia]

Spending time to debate/argue against Creationism & its "followers" is just plain bullocks. You will just waste time and energy.

If you want to end a debate such as this quickly, then show the evidence that support evolution then ask which evidence support Creationism. If they refer to a book, then refer them to The Flying Spaghetti.

THE F- END.

You're no fun at all.

Besides, the claims of creationists that there is no evidence for evolution and that the odds are astronomical against it, all that sort of thing, can cause doubt in people who haven't really thought about the issue. That's the insidious nature of the whole "teach the controversy" business. There is no controversy about evolution. It happens, we've seen it. "Teach the controversy" allows creationists to sneak intelligent design into the classroom under the guise of "intellectual freedom." I'm all for that, but teaching evangelical Protestant Christianity hiding in a lab coat as science is not intellectual freedom, it's intellectual dishonesty.

That's why we have to debate creationists.

[Hallistar]

Spending time to debate/argue against Creationism & its "followers" is just plain bullocks. You will just waste time and energy.

If you want to end a debate such as this quickly, then show the evidence that support evolution then ask which evidence support Creationism. If they refer to a book, then refer them to The Flying Spaghetti.

THE F- END.

You're no fun at all.

Besides, the claims of creationists that there is no evidence for evolution and that the odds are astronomical against it, all that sort of thing, can cause doubt in people who haven't really thought about the issue. That's the insidious nature of the whole "teach the controversy" business. There is no controversy about evolution. It happens, we've seen it. "Teach the controversy" allows creationists to sneak intelligent design into the classroom under the guise of "intellectual freedom." I'm all for that, but teaching evangelical Protestant Christianity hiding in a lab coat as science is not intellectual freedom, it's intellectual dishonesty.

That's why we have to debate creationists.

Agreed. "Creation Science" is the one of the biggest oxymorons I've ever heard of.

[Chinese Regions]

Yes I am Zaurobias new nation. Well from what I have read from my thread it seems that the evolutionists can't produce any solid evidence for their discredited theory so I am going to have to say that it is settled that creationism is the truth.

[Hallistar]

Yes I am Zaurobias new nation. Well from what I have read from my thread it seems that the evolutionists can't produce any solid evidence for their discredited theory so I am going to have to say that it is settled that creationism is the truth.

Discredited? Can't produce any....what?

Oh, you're just refusing to accept a theory as valid as the theory of relativity, because if creationism isn't right then god and heaven and jesus is savior might all be called into question.

[Neo Art]

Yes I am Zaurobias new nation. Well from what I have read from my thread it seems that the evolutionists can't produce any solid evidence for their discredited theory so I am going to have to say that it is settled that creationism is the truth.

Discredited? Can't produce any....what?

Oh, you're just refusing to accept a theory as valid as the theory of relativity, because if creationism isn't right then god and heaven and jesus is savior might all be called into question.

Um, the Theory of Evolution Via Natural Selection has CONSIDERABLY more evidence than the Theory of Relativity. We can't even come to a general consensus as to whether gravity is a quantum effect or a relativistic effect

[Hallistar]

Discredited? Can't produce any....what?

Oh, you're just refusing to accept a theory as valid as the theory of relativity, because if creationism isn't right then god and heaven and jesus is savior might all be called into question.

Um, the Theory of Evolution Via Natural Selection has CONSIDERABLY more evidence than the Theory of Relativity. We can't even come to a general consensus as to whether gravity is a quantum effect or a relativistic effect

Lol, I meant as in the nature of scientific theories, but if thats the case then more power to evolution.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Um, the Theory of Evolution Via Natural Selection has CONSIDERABLY more evidence than the Theory of Relativity. We can't even come to a general consensus as to whether gravity is a quantum effect or a relativistic effect

Relevant:

[Erinkita]

Yes I am Zaurobias new nation. Well from what I have read from my thread it seems that the evolutionists can't produce any solid evidence for their discredited theory so I am going to have to say that it is settled that creationism is the truth.

Wow. This person's delusion has ceased to be funny and moved into genuinely tragic territory.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Wow. This person's delusion has ceased to be funny and moved into genuinely tragic territory.

Obviously, he is a Bizarro

[Neo Art]

Um, the Theory of Evolution Via Natural Selection has CONSIDERABLY more evidence than the Theory of Relativity. We can't even come to a general consensus as to whether gravity is a quantum effect or a relativistic effect

Relevant:

I haven't seen this comic before, but the general gist is true. In fact, I've seen creationists use it too, saying that evolution isn't "proven" like gravity. Which fails to understand what science actually is and what science actually does.

GRAVITY is an observable fact. It has been observed that masses attract each other. We can come up with precise mathematical formula to exactly calculate that attraction. Newton did a pretty good job with it hundreds of years ago (though relativistic calculations do better at explaining the gravity of very large, and very far things)

EVOLUTION is, also, an observable fact. We can see it happening. We know, for a fact, that things evolve. We have a whole slew of antibiotic research predicated on that knowledge.

The THEORY OF GRAVITY addresses the question WHY masses attract each other. Likewise the Theory of Evolution addresses why evolution occurs. Theories don't try to describe WHAT is happening, we can see it happen. Theories are potential explanations as to WHY they happen

And what people never seem to understand is, as far as the THEORY of gravity goes, we're pretty much stumbling around in the dark. We have some ideas, and we're working on fleshing them out, but the two most believed theories (relativity and quantum gravity) are directly at odds with each other, and we really truly have no idea which is right, if either

The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is almost universally accepted, near completely understood, and generally as close to a scientific fact as we can get. Gravity? We don't have a clue.

And what confuses people is because gravity is such an inherent concept that the "what" and the "why" get confused. People think the theory of gravity is a scientific fact because, well, of course masses attract. But when you ask them why, the answer is generally "well, because masses attract".

Understanding exactly WHY gravity exists, what actual property of mass creates gravitational attraction, is something that we are only now begining to possibly understand. It's EXTRAORDINARLY complex.

[Khadgar]

Wow. This person's delusion has ceased to be funny and moved into genuinely tragic territory.

Obviously, he is a Bizarro

Or alternately he's been trolling us. I made a post, about 20 pages back about how ignorance isn't necessarily bad but willful ignorance is. He's crossed into the latter.

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

EDIT: I do believe in microevolution which has been proven but NOT macroevolution which hasn't been proven at all.

If you believe in micro- then you believe in macro- because they are exactly the same thing. The distinction between the two was created by idiot YECcers simply to try and discredit evolution while simultaneously ignoring the fact that evolution itself is a fact.

Which leads onto my second point:
The phenomenon known as evolution is a fact. It has been shown to exist in the wild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_observed_natural_selection), has been forced under laboratory conditions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-force-evolution-lab/#.T5F-Ktkuj-s) and has plenty of other indirect evidence, such as shared DNA between specie, fossil records, horse-racing stock books &c. which can and do fill many books.

So now we know that evolution exists, we have to look at what we can dispute, which is the theories developed to explain how and why it happens. In this case we are looking at Darwin's (and Wallace's) ToE, Mendel's genetics, and the addititions and expansions made to both, which can be and regularly are challenged as they are theories. Now the fact that ToE has been around for 150 years and has been extremely successful in explaining observed natural phenomena and standing up to the rigours of scientific inquiry (which is far more rigourous than YEC scrutiny, which has only one question; "can we say god did it?") with only a few minor modifications (genetic theory being more on the how, and ToE being on the why), leaves me fairly confident as a scientifically literate layman that ToE is pretty close to the actual reason for evolution happening.

However it is still a theory, meaning that we cannot take it a gospel, and if something comes along that either does not fit into ToE or more accurately describes evolution, I will abandon ToE without qualms, as any good inquiring person should.

[Farnhamia]

EDIT: I do believe in microevolution which has been proven but NOT macroevolution which hasn't been proven at all.

If you believe in micro- then you believe in macro- because they are exactly the same thing. The distinction between the two was created by idiot YECcers simply to try and discredit evolution while simultaneously ignoring the fact that evolution itself is a fact.

Which leads onto my second point:
The phenomenon known as evolution is a fact. It has been shown to exist in the wild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_observed_natural_selection), has been forced under laboratory conditions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-force-evolution-lab/#.T5F-Ktkuj-s) and has plenty of other indirect evidence, such as shared DNA between specie, fossil records, horse-racing stock books &c. which can and do fill many books.

So now we know that evolution exists, we have to look at what we can dispute, which is the theories developed to explain how and why it happens. In this case we are looking at Darwin's (and Wallace's) ToE, Mendel's genetics, and the addititions and expansions made to both, which can be and regularly are challenged as they are theories. Now the fact that ToE has been around for 150 years and has been extremely successful in explaining observed natural phenomena and standing up to the rigours of scientific inquiry (which is far more rigourous than YEC scrutiny, which has only one question; "can we say god did it?") with only a few minor modifications (genetic theory being more on the how, and ToE being on the why), leaves me fairly confident as a scientifically literate layman that ToE is pretty close to the actual reason for evolution happening.

However it is still a theory, meaning that we cannot take it a gospel, and if something comes along that either does not fit into ToE or more accurately describes evolution, I will abandon ToE without qualms, as any good inquiring person should.

Damn, I was with you right up to "it is still a theory." When we speak of the "theory of evolution" we're speaking of the explanation of how the facts of evolution occur. No inquiring person doubts that evolution happens. We can, however, debate the mechanism. Should new information come along that casts doubt on the current theory - explanation - we craft a new theory of evolution that better accommodates the new data.

[Leepaidamba]

Yes I am Zaurobias new nation. Well from what I have read from my thread it seems that the evolutionists can't produce any solid evidence for their discredited theory so I am going to have to say that it is settled that creationism is the truth.

It seems like that? Well let me change the scales for you. Let's put some evidence on our side for you to consider, starting with some dates contradicting the biblical time-line you believe in.

Dendrochronology has been used to accurately date things up to 11 570 years old. That's dating with tree rings as you might know. You'll have to deny the most basic dating method to believe in a earth as young as the bible tells you.
On Antarctica, a total of 800 000 layers of ice can be identified. Much like tree rings, ice accumulates one layer per year. 800 000 years, just try to comprehend how wrong that makes the bible already! By a factor of 133. And that's only the beginning.
Tracking back the current movements of the continents, we can determine that they formed one continent 200 million years ago. A factor 33 333 error already! And yes, there's massive evidence that the continents were joined together once. We can see the same rocks in places predicted to have been joined together. We can find fossils of the same species on different continents in patterns following the predictions of geology.
Through various radiometric dating methods, the earth's age has been measured as being 4 to 5 billion years. That's a factor 750 000 error!
The age of the universe, through various methods, has been determined to be 13,7 billion years.

Altogether, that gives you a universal age 228 333 times as much as what the bible tells you. If you really don't believe in evolution because of a lack of evidence (we all know that's not true at all) then you'll have to stop believing in young earth creationism too, because there isn't just a lack of evidence, but an abundance of contradictory evidence.

Anyone want to do fossils, molecular evidence and whatnot?

[AustriaHungaryBohemia]

Anyone want to do fossils, molecular evidence and whatnot?

Can I do DNA if he keeps pestering us? It's my favourite.

[Farnhamia]

Anyone want to do fossils, molecular evidence and whatnot?

Can I do mitochondrial DNA if he keeps pestering us? It's my favourite.

Knock yourself out. Put something searchable in the post, so we can link him back to it.

[Leepaidamba]

Damn, I was with you right up to "it is still a theory." When we speak of the "theory of evolution" we're speaking of the explanation of how the facts of evolution occur. No inquiring person doubts that evolution happens. We can, however, debate the mechanism. Should new information come along that casts doubt on the current theory - explanation - we craft a new theory of evolution that better accommodates the new data.

Farn, that's exactly what he tried to say. Even if it started with "still" a theory, which is just wrong. Because of the nature of a theory, evolution will always be a theory, so using "still" is redundant and conveys the wrong idea.

[Leepaidamba]

Anyone want to do fossils, molecular evidence and whatnot?

Can I do DNA if he keeps pestering us? It's my favourite.

By all means, go for it.

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

The problem with Darwinian evolution of any kind is abiogenesis and speciation, both of which are theories without evidence.

A) Abiogenesis has nothing to do with whether Darwin is right or wrong. This is because ToE does not deal with abiogenesis. To use this arguement is to say that Einsteinian gravity does not work because it says nothing about how or why certain radioactive elements decay, a nonsense arguement.

B) Speciation has been both observed in the wild and forced in the lab, see my last post for a small snapshot of available evidence. To deny this fact is the same as me denying the train I am currently travelling to Dublin on, just doesn't work.

So if you are going to argue against Darwin, please start again, with more solid arguements and facts to back them up.

[The Republic of Legantus]

Yes I am Zaurobias new nation. Well from what I have read from my thread it seems that the evolutionists can't produce any solid evidence for their discredited theory so I am going to have to say that it is settled that creationism is the truth.

I have three things to say.

1)

2) Read the other f*cking posts, as it is relatively easy to see you have not (Or at least have not actually understood what you were reading).

3) Show some actual proof that your "Truth" is actually true, as all I have seen is evidence to the contrary (I.E Evidence FOR evolution).

[Ski Apache Nation]

I can't believe in 2012, we're even debating over this. Are we going to debate over whether or not the earth is round next? Perhaps argue over whether tectonic plates move or not. Maybe we can finish it off with debating whether gravity is real or not

Gravity is just a theory!

Gravity is an "idea" that explains the function of the interaction between masses. It is not "real" in any sense of the word. Yet it still affects us, and in a predictable manner, according to the inverse-square law.

The idea of a God is not that he is some dude up in the clouds making mutated creatures and striking people with lightning. Things like gravity and evolution are functions of (His) interaction with the universe. They are what naturally occurs due to the fact that they were "parameters" the universe took during it's beginning. Most modern Christians would agree that evolution occurs, and God created it all, as one would make a Random-number generator, in something similar to the "Big Bang".

[Farnhamia]

Damn, I was with you right up to "it is still a theory." When we speak of the "theory of evolution" we're speaking of the explanation of how the facts of evolution occur. No inquiring person doubts that evolution happens. We can, however, debate the mechanism. Should new information come along that casts doubt on the current theory - explanation - we craft a new theory of evolution that better accommodates the new data.

Farn, that's exactly what he tried to say. Even if it started with "still" a theory, which is just wrong. Because of the nature of a theory, evolution will always be a theory, so using "still" is redundant and conveys the wrong idea.

Yes, it does convey the wrong idea, because I took him to be saying something other than he meant.