Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Timminz]

MOD EDIT: NO PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES ARE TO BE POSTED ON CC

JM

USER EDIT: NO PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES WERE POSTED HERE. THE SITE THAT HOSTS THE IMAGE I POSTED SEEMS TO HAVE QUITE THE "SENSE OF HUMOUR".

I'm sorry if anyone was offended by the image they saw here. It was NOT the intended image.

[Frigidus]

It was good knowing you Timminz. Also: I'd tap that.

[Rustovitch]

HINT-- to DEBATE, you have to actually listen and understand what your opponent is actually saying, not listen to 4th party interpretations that have nothing to do with reality.

This is coming from the fellow who is completely ignoring my words and replying to a completely seperate issue.

Please relax, go back two posts, read what I posted and reply to what I actually SAID. Or if as I suspect you do not understand it, ask me a relevant question and I will do my best to educate you.

Because at the moment you are addressing arguments I never posted, and it's a waste of my time.

You called science a religion, so I'm not sure I can take you seriously.

Erm... no... that would actually have been the complete and utter opposite thing to what I said.

[Rustovitch]

You refer to this "scientific dogma", but the only "dogma" is that of requiring proof before things are considered fact, wich I pointed out and you ignored.

Taking comments out of context to misrepresent an opposing view point is generally considered bad form.

I also pointed you to various forms of evidence that do exist. And, asked that you respond with some of that real evidence you think is there.

Indeed I believe you did...
But that is because you appear to believe you are currently arguing in favour of evolution against a creationist, this is actually an argument you are having on your own and in spite of my posts.

Your response was that if I tried to say that the battle to prove the Earth is old was won in hard faught battles decades ago, was to tell me I did not "understand" what I had been taught.

Actually the context of the discussion was not regarding the age of the earth, and I simply pointed out if you choose to express yourself in a manner contrary to the scientific method in a debate you will be ripped to pieces.

[comic boy]

So much time, money and energy put in, so many lies and distortions,so many young children miseducated and for what........So that a few insecure people can pretend that their book of devotion is utterly and literaly 100% correct
The pathetic thing is that if evolution was completely disproved tommorow then it would still not further the cause of Creationists, if every Geologist,Biologist and Physicist turned out to be wrong then it would still not prove that Genesis was correct in regard to the timing and formation of the earth

[Rustovitch]

The mistake people make is in turning it from a scientific or academic question into an expression of faith or personal identity.

[comic boy]

The mistake people make is in turning it from a scientific or academic question into an expression of faith or personal identity.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Creationist agenda is not driven by religious dogma........oh please say yes because that would be too precious

[Rustovitch]

The mistake people make is in turning it from a scientific or academic question into an expression of faith or personal identity.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Creationist agenda is not driven by religious dogma........oh please say yes because that would be too precious

Where did I say that?

[comic boy]

The mistake people make is in turning it from a scientific or academic question into an expression of faith or personal identity.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Creationist agenda is not driven by religious dogma........oh please say yes because that would be too precious

Where did I say that?

Well Creationism isnt scientific in the least and has no academic merit outside religious studies ,so exactly what were you infering in your original quote If you were refering to Evolution then what you say would make sense in as much that it is indeed not comparable to Creationism, but we have mostly all been saying that since page one . This thread has been a fraud from the start, the OP made no attempt to make a scientific case for Creationism ( wisely so considering that no case exists ) and instead , like all Young Earthers, seeks instead to discredit Evolution in the mistaken belief that somehow that strengthens his own cause, as I said before it doesn't !

[sailorseal]

Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that

[demonfork]

Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that

All of the current methods that scientists use to determine the age of something involve the utilization of unprovable assumptions. For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.

It's these little assumptions that have allowed scientists to essentially "cook data" since the beginning of science.

The scientific age of the earth is no more provable than the existence of God, both belief systems require a bit of faith for their respective formulas to work.

[Neoteny]

Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that

All of the current methods that scientists use to determine the age of something involve the utilization of unprovable assumptions. For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.

It's these little assumptions that have allowed scientists to essentially "cook data" since the beginning of science.

The scientific age of the earth is no more provable than the existence of God, both belief systems require a bit of faith for their respective formulas to work.

You are a farce.

[MeDeFe]

Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that

All of the current methods that scientists use to determine the age of something involve the utilization of unprovable assumptions. For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.

It's these little assumptions that have allowed scientists to essentially "cook data" since the beginning of science.

The scientific age of the earth is no more provable than the existence of God, both belief systems require a bit of faith for their respective formulas to work.

You are a farce.

I think it was irony. At least I hope it was.

[comic boy]

Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that

All of the current methods that scientists use to determine the age of something involve the utilization of unprovable assumptions. For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.

It's these little assumptions that have allowed scientists to essentially "cook data" since the beginning of science.

The scientific age of the earth is no more provable than the existence of God, both belief systems require a bit of faith for their respective formulas to work.

The exact age is unlikely to ever be proven but the overwhelming scientific concencus is that the earth is very many millions of years old, consequently this can be accepted as a probability and leaps of faith are not required. The Young Earth figure of 6000 - 10.000 years old has no scientific basis whatsoever, it is based purely on biblical text and is 100% the product of faith. The two are not comparable in any shape or form, just because something cannot be aged exactly does not allow a wildly improbable figure to be acceptable as an alternative.

[PLAYER57832]

This thread has been a fraud from the start, the OP made no attempt to make a scientific case for Creationism ( wisely so considering that no case exists ) and instead , like all Young Earthers, seeks instead to discredit Evolution in the mistaken belief that somehow that strengthens his own cause, as I said before it doesn't !

This is only partially true. In the original post, before it was edited, Widowmakers laid out several pages of supposed "proofs" showing that the Earth had to be young, that Evolutionary information was faulty.

The "evidence' ranged from a study from a Japanese researcher on bacteria to something about pits that were or were not supposed to be meteor strikes (can no longer remember which side he argued), etc. However, that information was deleted and, yes, since nothing real has been presented here. A little bit was presented by various people in the Real U debate where this was continued, but not much.

[Neoteny]

lol?

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm
http://www.designinference.com/teaching ... 0dec08.pdf

Dembskifail

Note: I have yet to determine if this is real or satirical

[PLAYER57832]

Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that

All of the current methods that scientists use to determine the age of something involve the utilization of unprovable assumptions. For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.

It's these little assumptions that have allowed scientists to essentially "cook data" since the beginning of science.

The scientific age of the earth is no more provable than the existence of God, both belief systems require a bit of faith for their respective formulas to work.

You speak of all these "assumptions", but when challanged do not produce anything.

When you do, it is usually taking something WAY out of context or something that has nothing at all really to do with Evolution or the age of the Earth.

EXAMPLE:

For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.

I don't even have to know what "redshift" is> However, saying that scientists assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years is not entirely true.

Yes, we CAN know that it was the same 200 years ago, but further back, the evidence gets more tenuous. It requires some pretty hefty physics and astronomy to actually show better where you are wrong, not my field. HOWEVER, let's assume that you are completely correct in that the speed of light has changed (some scientists have postulated that it might under certain conditions).

This is why these things are phrased (in short) "given the known universe", etc. Saying that scientists cannot say for sure this happened is a very far cry from proving it is not true OR EVEN presenting a logically acceptable argument. THAT is the problem with so-called "Creation science". It takes the most tenuous and unsupported of suppositions and then says "see scientists are bafoons and liars" ... The lie is in asserting that any dispute or lack of proof in this area still does NOT prove the Earth is young or that Evolution did not occur.

Its as if you were saying "see -- 2+3 does not equal 5, this 1rst grader claims that is true, he is wrong, so math is wrong."



IN FACT, you have it exactly backwards.



1. no one knows the age of the universe or very much at all about anything outside of our solar system. We know precious little about what happens/has happened IN our solar system and even parts of Earth. Therefore, even debating these things as if it will disprove Evolution or that the Earth is young is plain idiotic! They are not where the proof originates

2. Contrary to your assertion, scientists start with only what they can see, hear, feel, test, otherwise record, ... PROVE. THEN they look at the data and either keep the theory or (more often) wind up changing it.
Now, the confusion arises becuase scientists are, by nature thinkers and analyzers, often pretty creative individuals. So, scientists can come up with all sorts of theories and ideas. Many of these ideas get dismissed as "unprovables" that (more or less) might be fun to chat about in the "deep hours" or "crazy moments", but are not anything close to real science. Aliens, God, the origin of the universe, even the nature of good and evil are all in that realm, as are many, many other things. A few border on reality (what might it be like to live on Mars, for example). BUT, THIS IS NOT REAL SCIENCE, it is "play". Once in a great while something in those conversations will spur a scientist on to look at things in a different way and new ideas may well emerge.

Sadly, a lot of that junk now, in the internet days, gets "published" on blogs and so forth and somehow winds up becoming "scientific reality" for too many people. But it is not really science! The old standard, one that still applies, but often gets dismissed as "too long and cumbersome" is that for something to be accepted as real and true information, it must be published in a credible journal, where it will be reviewed by experts in that particular field (called the "peer review process"). Creationists are quick to point to "bias" in this process, but the truth is that what these people look at is whether information presented follows the standards that are accepted in that field. How did those procedures get to be accepted? Because they were shown over and over and over again to give valid, predictable, repeatable results. Don't like the methods? If you can prove your case, then you are almost certain to be published. Scientists want to know if there are better ways of doing things or if their procedures are shown to be wrong. In almost all cases, they know techniques have faults, and would very much like to do better. (the exception is when a study has been long-standing. In that case, they will often continue with the old method and then use the new method side-by-side, because there is value in being able to compare the SAME data from one year to the next)

All Creationists have to do to get published is to show error in the standard reasoning. Creationists too often want to just sidestep that process. They want to publish "this is true because I think this is what the Bible says"... and if challanged at all, fall back on that old saw "you are biased" or "you are making assumptions that are wrong". They never show the assumptions, challenge them in a real way, they just toss out that accusation as if it were true.


The bottom line:

ALL OF EUROPEAN SCIENCE STARTED WITH THE BELIEF THAT THE EARTH WAS YOUNG, but then HAD TO CHANGE their beliefs BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THE EARTH WAS, in fact OLD.

Look at history. Those who believed that the Earth was not created in 6 days back in the 1600's and 1700's in Europe are very, very, very few. Denying this fact makes a convenient story for Creationist proponents, but it just is not true.

[sinctheassasin]

the funny thing is,

religion was made with no proof, no facts that we can see today. there is absoultly NOTHING that you religious people can show anybody, that will prove the existence of god, except that little book you guys read, the bible ( along with its other versions, the torah, etc)

science was and is practically built on itself, and for the most part, it includes nothing besides facts that you and me agree on. we have evidence that evolution exists ( fossils, similar embryos among species, etc) But do you really think that if we cant explain something, we leave it to some mysterious being that is everywhere at once and can do anything?

ie: back in the stone age, or maybe even somewhere in bc. it was believed that thunder meant that god was angry (i cant site any sources, but they couldent explain it any other way ) we now know that it has to do with electricity flowing through from the clouds to the ground, and the sudden heat up of the air makes the molecules expand so rapidly that it creates a cracking noise that can be heard for miles.

we can actually now predict when "god will be angry" through the use of scientific equipment. If we could predict when god was going to be angry, he could probably do it too, and therefore, stop whatever will anger him... my point is that these many mini religions that existed around the world BC, have really been disproven by now with science, how can you be so sure yours wont be next?

another idea that i'll leave you with is: ptolomy was just as convinced that the Earth was flat, than you are that God created the Universe from his fingers...

[PLAYER57832]

my point is that these many mini religions that existed around the world BC, have really been disproven by now with science, how can you be so sure yours wont be next?
..

The overwhelming majority of believers fully accept both science AND the Bible/Old testament, etc. (as applicable -- for me, its the Bible).

However, as you say, if people place their entire faith on something science has completely and utterly disproven, then their faith is not fast. It will, in time die.

I believe that Creationists severely and seriously damage Christianity as well as our entire intellectual knowledge (because it is largely based on science).

[AlgyTaylor]

I love this thread ... I can come back after 12 months away and it's still being 'debated'

Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that

All of the current methods that scientists use to determine the age of something involve the utilization of unprovable assumptions. For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.

It's these little assumptions that have allowed scientists to essentially "cook data" since the beginning of science.

The scientific age of the earth is no more provable than the existence of God, both belief systems require a bit of faith for their respective formulas to work.

Hehe ... I do hope you're trolling there.

If creationism is true then it follows that the vast majority of modern (certainly 19th century onwards) science is false as it contradicts it. And that's that.

I know which one I put my trust in there ...

[jonesthecurl]

there has to be a God.
Every time i see this thread has reared its ugly head again I mutter Ohhhh Godddd....

[PLAYER57832]

I love this thread ... I can come back after 12 months away and it's still being 'debated'

Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that

All of the current methods that scientists use to determine the age of something involve the utilization of unprovable assumptions. For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.

It's these little assumptions that have allowed scientists to essentially "cook data" since the beginning of science.

The scientific age of the earth is no more provable than the existence of God, both belief systems require a bit of faith for their respective formulas to work.

Hehe ... I do hope you're trolling there.

If creationism is true then it follows that the vast majority of modern (certainly 19th century onwards) science is false as it contradicts it. And that's that.

I know which one I put my trust in there ...

A recent poll showed that close to 30% of the adult US population now question Evolution. It is a travesty of American education.

[PLAYER57832]

Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that

All of the current methods that scientists use to determine the age of something involve the utilization of unprovable assumptions. For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.

It's these little assumptions that have allowed scientists to essentially "cook data" since the beginning of science.

The scientific age of the earth is no more provable than the existence of God, both belief systems require a bit of faith for their respective formulas to work.

Again, science does NOT base itself upon assumptions. They observe facts.

Anything to do with aging the entire universe is theory, it is nothing any scientist would put forward as fact. We don't even know the size of the universe, (people guess, but we don't know) never mind its age!

How do we know Evolution is almost certainly true?

1. observing the spread and diversity of the animals alive today.

2. fossil evidence that, when present (there absolutely are gaps), shows clear changes over time, progressions from one species to another. No, there is no complete record, but there is enough to show that animals have shown gradual change over long periods of time.

3. layering of rocks, which you can see in road cuts most readily, but also places where natural erosion occured and where core samples have been taken by Geologists. These records are extremely extensive. Some puzzles do exists, but Geologists have been able to find, through evidence, how various land forms were created. This is confirmed MANY ways -- usually rock that appears on the bottom, for example, is older. When plates have been turned over, there is evidence of that (ranging from wear points on the bottom to "breaks" that look quite different from natural layering, etc.). When layers have been "folded " by techtonic processes (essentially earthquakes and the like), it looks very much like layers of blankets that are pushed together to form "mountains" look. In many cases, these processes occure very, very, very slowly, but Earth quakes create sudden movements that give us glimpses of what happens in other cases. (note -- slow movement creates a different pattern from quick movements). NONE of this was discovered because scientists in the middle ages decided thge Earth was formed of floating layers above a molten middle. Creationism was, in fact, taken to be reality for a very long time, although Christian and Jewish religious scholars always held out that there was some ambiguity about the timing of Earth's origins. The change came not in the Bible, but in science. Folks back then would have no way of even considering that the Earth might be millions of years old. THEY assumed it was much younger. It was only when science began to prove otherwise that folks began to seriously question some scholar's assumptions about the Bible.
It is no different than the way many people will declare that Moses parted the Red Sea, but archeologists and, indeed many Bible scholars pretty much recognize that this was an error of humans, that the sea spoken of in the Bible was the lesser known sea of reeds. Both names are very similar in Hebrew. People knew the Red sea and not so much the sea of reeds, so popular lore became that Moses parted the Red sea. So, too, popular lore had it that the Earth was young, even though the Bible does not truly say that.

4. Biology, detailed studies of animals show differentiation exactly concurrent with evolution and very much counter to what would have happened if the Earth were only 12,000 or even a few 100 thousand years old.

5. Various types of chemical and atomic physics evidence as well as evidence from many other fields of study. I don't understand most of that in detail, but I do accept that the scientist who study it use the scientific method, that the evidence they present has been challeged by scientists who DO understand it fully.


Notice how there is nothing up there about radiometric dating, light waves or any other of the assumptions you claim were made to support Evolution and disprove a young Earth.

[john9blue]

there has to be a God.
Every time i see this thread has reared its ugly head again I mutter Ohhhh Godddd....

I know right? These young earth creationists make all religion look bad...

[jonka]

This thread has been a fraud from the start, the OP made no attempt to make a scientific case for Creationism ( wisely so considering that no case exists ) and instead , like all Young Earthers, seeks instead to discredit Evolution in the mistaken belief that somehow that strengthens his own cause, as I said before it doesn't !

http://qc.createdebate.com/img/blog_art ... rarchy.jpg
Check it out