Americans Favour Creationism Over Evolution

[manu1959]

Say what? Creation and evolution aren't the same thing but they aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Maybe you could make yourself a little more clear.

you said your logic skills were brilliant....are you unable logically to split the difference between creation and evolution and how creation can exist without evolution but evolution can not exist without creation?

come now....if nothing is created then there is nothing to evolve

 

[Powerman]

you said your logic skills were brilliant....are you unable logically to split the difference between creation and evolution and how creation can exist without evolution but evolution can not exist without creation?

come now....if nothing is created then there is nothing to evolve

True I understand that. But there isn't any rule that says for something to be created it must be created by a supreme being who cares if you have premarital sex or not. It can be created by random natural occurrences. Certain planets have the ability to sustain life better than others so the chance that life would eventually naturally spawn itself is greater in some places than in others. There is no scientific evidence that suggests that there MUST be some supreme creator.

 

[no1tovote4]

You're parsing words here. OK how about this factual statement. There is absolutely no evidence that we were created by a supreme or alien life form.

Irreducible complexity is evidence of just such a thing. It is one of the ways that they use to test whether Evolution is a valid theory. If it is proved that such complex structures could come into being at the same time by chance, without help from outside intelligence, then it would disprove the hypothetical idea of irreducible complexity. However, testing has yet to disprove this hypothesis.

 

[no1tovote4]

"There is no scientific evidence that suggests that there MUST be some supreme creator."

And there is none that states that there CANNOT BE a Creator, whether supreme or not. There is no evidence collected that shows that this was not created.

 

[Powerman]

"There is no scientific evidence that suggests that there MUST be some supreme creator."

And there is none that states that there CANNOT BE a Creator, whether supreme or not. There is no evidence collected that shows that this was not created.

Ding ding ding....LOL it's about time you figured that out. If there is no proof of something there is also no proof that that something doesn't exist. That is why it can't be science because it is not falsifiable. So now do you understand it?

 

[Bonnie]

True I understand that. But there isn't any rule that says for something to be created it must be created by a supreme being who cares if you have premarital sex or not. It can be created by random natural occurrences. Certain planets have the ability to sustain life better than others so the chance that life would eventually naturally spawn itself is greater in some places than in others. There is no scientific evidence that suggests that there MUST be some supreme creator.

True but if you look at the infantesimal numbers that represent the chances of creation just spontaneously occuring can not really be proven scientifically either, there are too many holes within the chain of events themselves.

Natural selection is not an empiracal theory. Therefore it is impossible to present empirical evidence against it, this then disqualifies it as a scientific theory.
As of now there is no proof macroevolutionary processes, the notion that all species have a common origin just doesn't flesh out because they use unrelated species and claim they are all of the same origin. If your saying we should stay with the theory of evolution because right now it's all we have that is remotely scientific then those very big inconsistencies need to be addressed.

 

[manu1959]

True I understand that. But there isn't any rule that says for something to be created it must be created by a supreme being who cares if you have premarital sex or not. It can be created by random natural occurrences. Certain planets have the ability to sustain life better than others so the chance that life would eventually naturally spawn itself is greater in some places than in others. There is no scientific evidence that suggests that there MUST be some supreme creator.

you always take that leap.....where and from what do you logically conclude that i belive in a supreme being and that i belive that being is the creator.....

i will say it agian.....creation can exist without evolution.....evolution must first have creation in order to be...

where did planets come from?

 

[manu1959]

True I understand that. But there isn't any rule that says for something to be created it must be created by a supreme being who cares if you have premarital sex or not. It can be created by random natural occurrences. Certain planets have the ability to sustain life better than others so the chance that life would eventually naturally spawn itself is greater in some places than in others. There is no scientific evidence that suggests that there MUST be some supreme creator.

name one thing that has been scientifically proven to be randomly created......and naturally spawned from nothing

 

[no1tovote4]

Ding ding ding....LOL it's about time you figured that out. If there is no proof of something there is also no proof that that something doesn't exist. That is why it can't be science because it is not falsifiable. So now do you understand it?

Incorrect, one can gather evidence that would show whether something was created.

For example. One can deduce if something is created by an intelligence if there is no possible way that it could have come into existence by chance. This is the hypothesis of irreducible complexity.

Simply stating that there is no current evidence gathered supporting something is not the same thing as stating that there can be no evidence.

 

[Powerman]

where did planets come from?

I don't know you would assume I have the answers to every such cosmic question but this is the expert opinion of a particle Phycicist by the name of Cliff Walker on the origin of Earth:

It appears that a quantum fluctuation, resulting from zero impetus and requiring zero energy, escaped into a vacuum, resulting in a universe which supports stars. At least one star lived its life and burned out, leaving enough larger and more complex molecules to form the planet Earth. This planet formed because the dusty matter was denser in one part of the remnant of the exploded star than elsewhere, and gravity kept pulling more dusty matter until we got what we have: planet Earth, which is one of at least eight other planets orbiting the Sun, which also congealed from the remnants of this star plus other matter which is relatively common within the Universe.

 

[manu1959]

I don't know you would assume I have the answers to every such cosmic question but this is the expert opinion of a particle Phycicist by the name of Cliff Walker on the origin of Earth:

It appears that a quantum fluctuation, resulting from zero impetus and requiring zero energy, escaped into a vacuum, resulting in a universe which supports stars. At least one star lived its life and burned out, leaving enough larger and more complex molecules to form the planet Earth. This planet formed because the dusty matter was denser in one part of the remnant of the exploded star than elsewhere, and gravity kept pulling more dusty matter until we got what we have: planet Earth, which is one of at least eight other planets orbiting the Sun, which also congealed from the remnants of this star plus other matter which is relatively common within the Universe.

well you do have flawless logic and seem quite the know it all so i figure the cliff clavin in you would give us your thoughts..........

where did the dusty matter come from.....

 

[Powerman]

well you do have flawless logic and seem quite the know it all so i figure the cliff clavin in you would give us your thoughts..........

where did the dusty matter come from.....

I have no idea where the Dusty matter came from. Maybe if I was an astrophycist I'd have some better answers for you. You could just as easily ask "where did the creator come from." The only difference is when you ask someone of knowledge where the dust came from they might have an intelligent explanation of where it came from and when you ask someone where the creator(s) came from there is absolutely nothing they can answer with.

 

[manu1959]

I have no idea where the Dusty matter came from. Maybe if I was an astrophycist I'd have some better answers for you. You could just as easily ask "where did the creator come from." The only difference is when you ask someone of knowledge where the dust came from they might have an intelligent explanation of where it came from and when you ask someone where the creator(s) came from there is absolutely nothing they can answer with.

so you have no idea where the dusty matter came from that became planets that randomly and naturally spawned life then randomly through evolution and natural selction became man.....but you are dead positive that it was not a creator and magic apples and a talking snake...thanks for clearing that up

 

[Powerman]

so you have no idea where the dusty matter came from that became planets that randomly and naturally spawned life then randomly through evolution and natural selction became man.....but you are dead positive that it was not a creator and magic apples and a talking snake...thanks for clearing that up

There is a ton of evidence for one and absolutely ZERO evidence for the other and plenty of scientific evidence points to Genesis being impossible. I think I'll go with the one that there is evidence for over the one for which there is absolutely no evidence. I'm not cocky enough to say that I know exactly how everything happened because that would just be stupid. But if we're going to teach one of the 2 in a science class let's make it the one that involves science and not mythical fairy tales.

 

[manu1959]

There is a ton of evidence for one and absolutely ZERO evidence for the other and plenty of scientific evidence points to Genesis being impossible. I think I'll go with the one that there is evidence for over the one for which there is absolutely no evidence. I'm not cocky enough to say that I know exactly how everything happened because that would just be stupid. But if we're going to teach one of the 2 in a science class let's make it the one that involves science and not mythical fairy tales.

is there a particualr reason you wish to go around the barn again?

you just gave me scientific evidence of genesis....you said that once there was nothing then there was dust then there were planets then there were things then there were people....

sounds like an exact science to me.....

 

[Powerman]

is there a particualr reason you wish to go around the barn again?

you just gave me scientific evidence of genesis....you said that once there was nothing then there was dust then there were planets then there were things then there were people....

sounds like an exact science to me.....

I never said such a thing. I just said I didn't know where the dust came from. Maybe you should pay more attention or read up on the big bang theory. I did not give you any scientific evidence of Genesis and you'd have to be hallucinating to come to that conclusion. Genesis and reality are 2 different things and the sooner you learn that the better.

 

[manu1959]

I never said such a thing. I just said I didn't know where the dust came from. Maybe you should pay more attention or read up on the big bang theory. I did not give you any scientific evidence of Genesis and you'd have to be hallucinating to come to that conclusion. Genesis and reality are 2 different things and the sooner you learn that the better.

yes you did...read your posts....you said there was dust that formed planets that spontaneously created life then through evolution created man....that is what you teach in your classes no?

Genesis is simply just a different explanation of the creation of life

one mans genesis is another man's big bang....wrote a thesis on the big bang theory in the 60's

Why are you so closed minded to other possibilities..... seems odd for a science teacher to be so close minded

 

[Powerman]

yes you did...read your posts....you said there was dust that formed planets that spontaneously created life then through evolution created man....that is what you teach in your classes no?

Genesis is simply just a different explanation of the creation of life

one mans genesis is another man's big bang....wrote a thesis on the big bang theory in the 60's

Why are you so closed minded to other possibilities..... seems odd for a science teacher to be so close minded

I'm no longer a science teacher. I'm an electrical engineering student. I'm not closed minded at all to the possibility that a supreme being could have created life. The problem is there is absolutely ZERO proof for it and is therefor not science. Secondly, Genesis is factually impossible for a number of reasons that are obvious to us now but were not very obvious to Moses and his primitive understanding of the world.

 

[Hobbit]

"It is accepted by a large portion of the scientific community, namely those who see too many holes in evolution and those who are religious. It is still not the predominant theory, but has gained more ground on evolution than you know, or at least more than you're willing to admit."

You are either ignorant or you like to tell lies because this is complete bullshit.

Prove me wrong. All I've seen you do to arguments like this is cuss, and that buys you about as much credibility as claiming you'll beat me up if I don't agree with you.

Oh, and there's tons of evidence for Genisis. Depth of moon dust? Irreducable complexity? It's there. It just disagrees with your assertion that spontaneous creation is the only possible truth, so that seems to make it junk science.

By the way, I believe I posed an unanswered question earlier. There's no evidence of a creator for the Easter Island statues except the existance of the statues. Does that mean they occured randomly due to some very coincidental rock location and some *incredibly* precise erosion? By your logic so far, it does. What about Stonehenge?

 

[Powerman]

Prove me wrong.

I already have but apparently you didn't do your reading on the thread.

Here is a quote from the link I posted.

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is not science. While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor by creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help.

You are trying to tell me that a "larger portion of the scientific community" is gravitating towards a theory that isn't even science? You're the one that made such a ridiculous claim so you back it up. And don't just say that a friend told you that. I want to see some documentation of it.