Evolution vs. Creationism

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by deciophobic
this is the most unimformed response i have ever read.

#1 The fossil record is NO proof of evolution, at all.
#2 Adaption of species on the galpagos(sp) islands, you said it yourself, it's adaption, NOT evolution
#3 there is absolutely NO scientific proof to disprove creation, while there are tons of facts to disprove evolution
shall i get into them?
#4 the pope only said he accepted evolution cuz it was such a fast growing theory and stated as fact, so the church had to find a way to let evolution work(changes in the bible for example)

1. Sorry, fossil evidence shows the definite progression of changes in species over time.

2. Adaptation IS natural selection IS evolution...Get over it.

3. Umm where did you get your science education? Out of a Cracker-jack box? There is no proof of the creation you describe, so there is nothing to disprove. Tolkien's cosmology laid out in "The Silmarillion" makes about as much sense as biblical creation, and is a more entertaining red. As for evolution, at least there is evidence to support it, and it has gone fro theory to accepted scientific fact. Your proof, as I stated earlier is the product of the fever dreams of deluded sicentist-wannbe religious zealots.

4. Who care why the pop accepted evolution. It only took the Mother Church 100 years to accept it as opposed to 500 for Gallileo's work.

Religion and science donnot and cannot occupy the same ground. Religion is the realm of the subjective...the spiritual...Mythos. Science is the realm of the objective...the empirical...Logos. Trying to fit them both into the same box just ain't gonna work.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
1. Sorry, fossil evidence shows the definite progression of changes in species over time.

2. Adaptation IS natural selection IS evolution...Get over it.

3. Umm where did you get your science education? Out of a Cracker-jack box? There is no proof of the creation you describe, so there is nothing to disprove. Tolkien's cosmology laid out in "The Silmarillion" makes about as much sense as biblical creation, and is a more entertaining red. As for evolution, at least there is evidence to support it, and it has gone fro theory to accepted scientific fact. Your proof, as I stated earlier is the product of the fever dreams of deluded sicentist-wannbe religious zealots.

Religion and science donnot and cannot occupy the same ground. Religion is the realm of the subjective...the spiritual...Mythos. Science is the realm of the objective...the empirical...Logos. Trying to fit them both into the same box just ain't gonna work.

Obviously you haven't read my evidence yet, or decided your "mythos" was worth believing far more than my "science".

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Obviously you haven't read my evidence yet, or decided your "mythos" was worth believing far more than my "science".

I've seen the "Creation Science" arguments. They're not worth the paper they're written on or the bandwidth to post them.

I leave the mythos where it belongs...in the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or home.

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit:
...I don't argue with zealots, be they religious or political. You point out all the facts to them, you cite all the sources, and you still get this dumb, uncomprehending look on their faces. It just doesn't register with them, and they throw up stupid and innane arguments as to why it just can't be other than how they see it.

I think I'm going to have to agree with you there, Bully. That being the case, I'll stop arguing with you about how evolution is about as believable and provable as creationism. I'll even add a type of zealot to the list, scientific. That would be people that have so much faith in vague, unprovable, "scientific," theories tha they refuse to acknowledge the flaws in them.

 

[5stringJeff]

The argument about creationism vs. evolution really boils down to the origin of life. The Bible (and Koran, for that matter) gives a clear source for the origin of life: God. Science offers no feasible alternative - and not for lack of trying. But the simple fact is that no scientific hypothesis can account for the existence of life itself. Thus, the conclusion that something, or Someone, must have created life out of nothing. That Someone, I argue, is God.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Someone sent this to me - I thought it was kinda funny

A Recently Spotted Bumper Sticker:

"I Give Evolution Two Opposable Thumbs Up."

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
In any case, does that make this information any less viable?

The point is you should link your sources. Or did you make that whole post up about C-14 dating too?

And you didn't comment on Thorium-230. I would think someone with your obviously expansive knowledge of C-14 and Argon dating methods should have an opinion on Uranium series too.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
The argument about creationism vs. evolution really boils down to the origin of life. The Bible (and Koran, for that matter) gives a clear source for the origin of life: God. Science offers no feasible alternative - and not for lack of trying. But the simple fact is that no scientific hypothesis can account for the existence of life itself. Thus, the conclusion that something, or Someone, must have created life out of nothing. That Someone, I argue, is God.

Actually, as I pointed out earlier, evolution and God can co-exist just fine with one another. Science gives no yes-or-no answers concerning theology because religion isn't the purview of science. Most scientists probably believe in both god and evolution.

The default answer is someone may have created life, we just don't know.

I'm an atheist, but I will always concede that the existence of a god is possible, I just don't believe it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
The argument about creationism vs. evolution really boils down to the origin of life. The Bible (and Koran, for that matter) gives a clear source for the origin of life: God. Science offers no feasible alternative - and not for lack of trying. But the simple fact is that no scientific hypothesis can account for the existence of life itself. Thus, the conclusion that something, or Someone, must have created life out of nothing. That Someone, I argue, is God.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the deductive reasoning you use to ascertain the existence of a creator can lead on to logically valid conclusions while providing no genuinely useful conclusion.

The ontological arguments of either science or religion are of events of which we cannot have any direct experience. Science, however, examines the evidence and draws its conclusions. It examines specific instances and derives general conclusions. Religion, on the other hand, looks to generalities and draws a specific conclusion. This conclusion, though it may be logically valid provides us with no genuinely useful information.

So, until there is empirical, objective and independently verifiable proof of the existence of a supreme being, I will not be bothered by whether or not such an entity exists.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
The point is you should link your sources. Or did you make that whole post up about C-14 dating too?

Now you are being stupid. I GAVE you those sources. I hand typed the bulk of it from what I found in my own library. Because you found the same points in a pdf file on another website means nothing, proves nothing, and is irrelevant.

About the c-14 dating, If I made the whole thing up, that doesn't invalidate anything. Do you need to be spoon fed everything? Don't you research your beliefs to see if they are TRUE or not? -Or do you just go off of what a journalist or scientist says? I gave you fact you can cross reference about the methodology of the testing. I gave you the flaws. I gave you the alternative scenarios. If you need to try to discredit this whole thing because of a source reputation, name, or other such nonsense, then you have shown how reliable your own data is by reason of non-thinking acceptance.

And you didn't comment on Thorium-230. I would think someone with your obviously expansive knowledge of C-14 and Argon dating methods should have an opinion on Uranium series too.

Since I am on vicodin with a root canal infection stretching beyond the nasal and optical cavities, and half of my face, I am rather limited in my capacity to get through my library to dig up that topic. You should know this isn't as easy as the ABCs to put down on paper when someone requests data. I will have something up ASAP.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit

The ontological arguments of either science or religion are of events of which we cannot have any direct experience.

I love that one. "I don't have any experience, therfore you can't either."

A relationship with Christ is given freely. What are you afraid of?

Science, however, examines the evidence and draws its conclusions. It examines specific instances and derives general conclusions. Religion, on the other hand, looks to generalities and draws a specific conclusion. This conclusion, though it may be logically valid provides us with no genuinely useful information.

Then adress the validity of the evidence I presented to you.

So, until there is empirical, objective and independently verifiable proof of the existence of a supreme being, I will not be bothered by whether or not such an entity exists.

Biblical prophecy is infallible and DOES prove it. You must have ignored my previous post about the shape of the Earth being fortold in 700 BC. Shall we open a thread to show proof that the Bible DOES prove the existence of God?

 

[Big D]

A man accused of murdering nine of his children told them that he was God and ordered the older ones to kill the younger ones and then commit suicide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ss10.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/10/ixworld.html

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Big D
A man accused of murdering nine of his children told them that he was God and ordered the older ones to kill the younger ones and then commit suicide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ss10.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/10/ixworld.html

-are you saying you are like him since you both don't understand WHO God is, what He represents, and therefore want to delude everyone else with BS while causing their downfall?

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by NewGuy
-are you saying you are like him since you both don't understand WHO God is, what He represents, and therefore want to delude everyone else with BS while causing their downfall?

Do you have any proof that this guy is not God?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Big D
Do you have any proof that this guy is not God?

:rotflmao:

Nope. Just 6000 years of documentation and a friend who clearly knows this guy isn't Him.

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by NewGuy
:rotflmao:

Nope. Just 6000 years of documentation and a friend who clearly knows this guy isn't Him.

Well I guess there goes your creation theory.

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by Big D
Well I guess there goes your creation theory.

Big D, I must say that that is one of the most illogical and twisted trains of thought I've ever seen. One crazy guy claiming to be God and killing his children is in no way related to creationism. The only possible logic processes that can lead to that conclusion make my IQ drop just by thinking about them. Now, would you care to elaborate on that logic.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Hobbit, if (or should I say when) this parasitical moron replies your IQ will further drop.

Lets all pray that he doesnt reply, therefore our IQ's will be saved.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth
Hobbit, if (or should I say when) this parasitical moron replies your IQ will further drop.

Lets all pray that he doesnt reply, therefore our IQ's will be saved.

Laughter is the best medicine.

I am laughing now and hurting like hell.

I better get well from it.

 

[KLSuddeth]