Evolution and Creationism

Zapp · Jun 29, 2006

I Have a Clever Name said:
It isn't reliable whatsoever. Certainly, it relates to civilisations and monarchs that existed. However, it is incredibly biased and the historical aspects are interwoven with theological nonesense.

Haven't you read sourcecritism in school? If you find a letter from 300 BC, you can't say the letters message is true, just that "they wrote letters", and in that aspect, the source is reliable.

So, the bible IS a reliable souce. From the bible, combined with other (independent) sources, you can atleast prove that, for example, "there was a king named nebukhadnessar" or how the heck that spells. (hmm, atleast I think he's mentioned in the bible, I could have mixed him with some other)

Lee1026 · Jun 29, 2006

Let us look at this logically - there are somethings in the bible that corrolate with the real world, that means that all of it must be true. However, I can write a book about the civil war that can all be backed up, but have a line in there that god does not exist, would that be accpetable?

The spartan · Jun 29, 2006

I think it is pretty obvious that evolution is proven. Well....few things can be "proven", but lets not get into that. The fact that all animals can be broken up into smaller groups, yet still be realated is proof enough. For example, a Chimp and a Snake are hardly what you would call realated, yet they are both still vertebrates. This means they share a very....very distant realitive. A chimp and a tiger are not closely related either, but they are both mammals so they are closer together than a snake. Why would good make this very specific groups for no aparent reason? Did he expect us to catagorize them at one point?

Gaidin · Jun 29, 2006

The big thing Spartan is that Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. The explantion on *how* it happens is the theory.

The spartan · Jun 29, 2006

Gaidin said:
The big thing Spartan is that Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. The explantion on *how* it happens is the theory.

Not quiet a fact, more of a theory. Probably did, and still is, happening. Yet, it is nearly impossible to prove anything. Gravity is still a theory, for instnace.

Lee1026 · Jun 29, 2006

It is not nearly impossible, it IS impossible.

IHaveFacts · Jun 30, 2006

God said:
By 'in vain' I suppose you mean they were instantly proved wrong?

Actually, by 'in vain', I meant that my posts went completely over the head of liberals like you. Who either:

A.) Did not read my posts, but responded to them as if they had

or

B.) Completely ignored or never directly responded to the arguments I presented for the Biblical account of creation.

Your a prime example of both A and B 'god' (notice god with a little g, meant to infer a false god), try going back and reading my post before making such a immature response.

I will say it again, ALL credible scientific/achaeological/historical evidence to date supports the Biblical account of creation. For example, science has shown that we infact live on a young earth 7000-11000 years old. The Biblical account by measuring geneoligies places the earth at 7-10,000 years old.

Please view this page concerning scientific evidence about the age of the earth, especially check out the graph:

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

If you like, verify those numbers through other sources, though they are all correct I assure you as I have done a significant amount of research on the topic myself. This shows the age of the Earth directly corresponds to the Biblical account (7-10,000 yrs)... not millions or billions of years old.

This fact in and of itself is enough to sink the ridiculous notion of evolution once and for all.

Concerning the fossil record and archaeology, once again I will ask that you please review my previous posts on the matter.

This last part is for the liberals reading:

VIEW THIS LINK:

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

VERIFY INFORMATION, DIGEST...RESPOND!

Shawn Kuhn (sarthurk@hotmail.com)

Tom Paine · Jun 30, 2006

The spartan said:
Not quiet a fact, more of a theory. Probably did, and still is, happening. Yet, it is nearly impossible to prove anything. Gravity is still a theory, for instnace.

However in science theory is the strongest possible term. Science has no facts, only theories, and to a layperson, this causes confusion; our use of the word theory fits more precisely with the scientific word hypothesis.

Lusted · Jun 30, 2006

Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve have descendants alive today. However, only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of mitochondria that persists today.

17. Population growth

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...rth/specific_arguments/population_growth.html

18. Minerals in the ocean

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/salt.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/mineral.html

19. Rapid mountain uplift

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

20. C-14 from old sources

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/contamination.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/constant_rate.html

21. Dark matter and spiral galaxies

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/star_clusters.html
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/dm_evidence.htm
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/9/1

22. Zircons

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

This is what i managed to find in about half and hour of google searching, and i've only had about 4 hours sleep.

Sam · Jun 30, 2006

shenmueguru said:
I think "hardly a reliable source" is a bit much. Most people say this because it is a religious book, and is biased. Archealogy has been correlated to various incidents in the bible, such as sumerian tablets reffering to a great flood, evidence the hittites existed (previously they were thought a biblical legend), evidence of an Assyrian king named Sargon mentioned in Isaiah, and many more. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

What about the many things that don't match up? Notably the Roman and Egyptian records.
Have you ever seen the TV series 'Rome'? It is about the lives of two soldiers in Caesar's army after they return to Rome from conquering Gaul. They are involved in some major historical events of the time involving GJ Caesar, Pompey Magnus, Mark Antony, Cleopatra, etc, their names are even referenced in Caesar's writings once, but this does in no way validate the lives they lived in the show, it doesn't mean that they were actually in the arena, that one of them was the real father of Caesar's child, etc.

In case you didn't get that, I'll repeat what I said to someone a few months ago. I'll apply your bad logic to the 'Da Vinci Code'. There was a Mary Magdalene, a guy called Jesus, and a group called the 'Knights Templar', therefore, the 'Da Vinci Code' is true.

Can you see how stupid it is now?

shenmueguru said:
Also, many say that the theory of life coming from the prebiotic soup is not plausible.

"...those trying to discover the origins of life and study the earliest stages of biological evolution have an uphill quest: Over and over it happens that a theory or explanation believed to be well established has to be abandoned or rethought in the light of new findings" (Lazcano 2003: 452). http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c004.html

Of course these views are constantly debated, just thought I'd bring one of the arguements up.

So, somehow "haven't found it yet" = "not plausible"?
What 'well established' theories have been abandoned or rethought?

I also looked at the attacks on the conditions of the prebiotic environment that Miller and Urey set up, namely the lack of oxygen which would 'eat up' the chemicals. Not only was there far less oxygen around then, but the reactions themselves could have taken place at thermal vents on the sea floors.

IHaveFacts said:
Actually, by 'in vain', I meant that my posts went completely over the head of liberals like you. Who either:

A.) Did not read my posts, but responded to them as if they had

or

B.) Completely ignored or never directly responded to the arguments I presented for the Biblical account of creation.

The hypocrisy, it burns!

All the points you brought up were demolished pretty easily, so don't pretend that they have any validity at all. The amusing part is that you don't even acknowledge that your points were wrong, and you still continue to spout them as proof that evolution is wrong.

Matthew 7:5 - "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Sam · Jun 30, 2006

Whoops, delete please.

Valentin the II · Jun 30, 2006

Lusted, Ill help compleat your argument.
8. :laughter:

You creationists are contradicting yourselvs! :laughter:

The problem of carbon :
"Indeed, the results of dating materials and artifacts with this method is perhaps singularly the most compelling "evidence" for evolution—the vast majority believing that since so many fossils have been dated far beyond the chronology of the Bible"

Your link: "This means they can be directly dated by the Carbon-14 method, the exact same way a mammoth or Neanderthal bone is dated. This has also been done at least 30 times, by various laboratories in the United States and Europe, and the dates indicate that dinosaurs were alive from 9,800 -- 50,000 years ago."

So basicly 1 creationist site tries to youse this method to prove its point.
And the other sais that the method is flawed.
Actualy both of them are wrong. My link (sory, the best I could find)

12.The dead sea : Link

"Around three million years ago what is now the valley of the Jordan River, Dead Sea, and Wadi Arabah/Nahal Arava was repeatedly inundated by waters from the Mediterranean Sea. The waters formed in a narrow, crooked bay which was connected to the sea through what is now the Jezreel Valley. The floods of the valley came and went depending on long scale climatic change. The lake that occupied the Dead Sea Rift, named "Lake Sodom", deposited beds of salt, eventually coming to be 3 km (2 miles) thick.

According to geological theory, approximately two million years ago the land between the Rift Valley and the Mediterranean Sea rose to such an extent that the ocean could no longer flood the area. Thus, the long bay became a long lake."

Ill do more when I have the time.
EDIT: 300th post!!

Mangalore · Jun 30, 2006

My actual problem with creationist is that they are dishonouring their own religion by putting the word before its meaning. The church itself has the position that the bible is sacred text describing divine events or being inspired by divine intervention, other than the Koran not being dictated from heaven. Strangely the Creationist who are supposed to be religious are completely ignoring their own religion leader's interpretation of the bible by demanding factual correctness for things that most likely were not even intended as such by its authors and even if that is the case is not the position of the church.

It's weird.

KingOfTheIsles · Jun 30, 2006

Wow, I cannot believe that the "Population Growth problem" has been described as being one of the best arguments for a young Earth model. :blink:

That theory alone shows the disgraceful scientific dishonesty of so-called Creationist Scientists. Either they were unaware of the massive increase in population growth that accompanied the development of agriculture, urbanisation and technology, or they chose to just ignore it. They are either incompetent or dishonest.

The White Knight · Jun 30, 2006

"Creationist scientists"?! Am I the only one who has to chuckle when he reads this? :laughter:

Shaun · Jun 30, 2006

The White Knight said:
"Creationist scientists"?! Am I the only one who has to chuckle when he reads this?

Well not all scientists research stuff like that, you get all different scientists. But yes, it does sound pretty contradictional, I wouldnt particulary trust a creationist scientist.

shenmueguru · Jun 30, 2006

Sam said:
What about the many things that don't match up? Notably the Roman and Egyptian records.
Have you ever seen the TV series 'Rome'? It is about the lives of two soldiers in Caesar's army after they return to Rome from conquering Gaul. They are involved in some major historical events of the time involving GJ Caesar, Pompey Magnus, Mark Antony, Cleopatra, etc, their names are even referenced in Caesar's writings once, but this does in no way validate the lives they lived in the show, it doesn't mean that they were actually in the arena, that one of them was the real father of Caesar's child, etc.

In case you didn't get that, I'll repeat what I said to someone a few months ago. I'll apply your bad logic to the 'Da Vinci Code'. There was a Mary Magdalene, a guy called Jesus, and a group called the 'Knights Templar', therefore, the 'Da Vinci Code' is true.

Can you see how stupid it is now?

So, somehow "haven't found it yet" = "not plausible"?
What 'well established' theories have been abandoned or rethought?

I also looked at the attacks on the conditions of the prebiotic environment that Miller and Urey set up, namely the lack of oxygen which would 'eat up' the chemicals. Not only was there far less oxygen around then, but the reactions themselves could have taken place at thermal vents on the sea floors.

The hypocrisy, it burns!

All the points you brought up were demolished pretty easily, so don't pretend that they have any validity at all. The amusing part is that you don't even acknowledge that your points were wrong, and you still continue to spout them as proof that evolution is wrong.

Matthew 7:5 - "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I never tried to prove the whole bible was scientific truth, just parts that could be considered. And what points were demolished? I just found a source and posed an idea that hasn't been proven (prebiotic soup thing). And that verse was taken entirely out of context. :blink:

Søren · Jun 30, 2006

The White Knight said:
"Creationist scientists"?! Am I the only one who has to chuckle when he reads this?

Unfortunatly you are not the only one who feels compelled to chuckle when you read this.

It's rather a pity that you, knowing relativly little about science, are trying to generally discredit anybody who believes in a view point you consider questionable from even being a scientist.

While, arguably, the creationist view point may well be fallacious, I am not arguing for it, particually - you are wholly wrong and unjustified to deliver such criticisms against people, some of whom are otherwise very good members of the scientific community. A more mature attitude to those who you disagree with is called for, I think.

Valentin the II · Jun 30, 2006

Ok, give me atleast one creationist who is a rispectible member of the scientific comunity (not just within other creationist comunities). And what has he contributed to science?

PS: your name confused me alittle :tongue:

.

Søren · Jun 30, 2006

Valentin the II said:
Ok, give me atleast one creationist who is a rispectible member of the scientific comunity (not just within other creationist comunities). And what has he contributed to science?

You really don't think there is even one? :huh:

From a little bit of research :

Dr James Allan, M.Sc.Agric. (Stellenbosch), Ph.D. (Edinburgh), former senior lecturer in the Department of Genetics, University of Stellenbosch

Dr. Andy McIntosh, DSc., FIMA, C. Math., FInstE, Professor in Combustion Theory at Leeds University, U.K

Dr. André Eggen, Ph.D. in animal genetics from the Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland. Research scientist for the French government since 1992.

Dr Raymond Damadian - invented Magnetic Resonance Imaging - received - the United States' National Medal of Technology - the Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award for invention and innovation - was elected to the National Inventors Hall of Fame.

Prof. Englin, Dennis L.—Professor of Geophysics

And many more.

Valentin the II · Jun 30, 2006

And you whant to tell me that they were all making up crazy theories to suport creationism?
I know that there are many religious scientists, but I doubt that they are all "fantics of christ".

Søren · Jun 30, 2006

Valentin the II said:
And you whant to tell me that they were all making up crazy theories to suport creationism?
I know that there are many religious scientists, but I doubt that they are all "fantics of christ".

That depends what you mean by "fanatics of Christ".

For instance, Dr. Raymond Damandian is a young earth creationist, so if that is your definition of a "fanatic of Christ", then yes, I suppose I am telling you that.

Sam · Jun 30, 2006

shenmueguru said:
I never tried to prove the whole bible was scientific truth, just parts that could be considered. And what points were demolished? I just found a source and posed an idea that hasn't been proven (prebiotic soup thing). And that verse was taken entirely out of context.

You didn't read who that last section of my post was directed at, did you?

My point was that correlation to various historical events does not make something a reliable source.

Valentinian said:
It's rather a pity that you, knowing relativly little about science, are trying to generally discredit anybody who believes in a view point you consider questionable from even being a scientist.

While, arguably, the creationist view point may well be fallacious, I am not arguing for it, particually - you are wholly wrong and unjustified to deliver such criticisms against people, some of whom are otherwise very good members of the scientific community. A more mature attitude to those who you disagree with is called for, I think.

Creation science was a laughably pathetic attempt to force biblical creationism into the classroom under the guise of science. I would love to debate some of those scientists if they truly think that creationism is a better theory, because I've been debating creationists for almost a year and have never seen a single argument which actually holds any water.

Labelling 'creation science' wrong is not an unfair act, they have been shown to be wrong many many times, under many different guises. Why the hell shouldn't we criticize it?

Søren · Jun 30, 2006

Sam said:
Creation science was a laughably pathetic attempt to force biblical creationism into the classroom under the guise of science.

I'm afraid that you probably don't know much about it; nor the people who believe in it then. That's certianly not the case.

I would love to debate some of those scientists if they truly think that creationism is a better theory, because I've been debating creationists for almost a year and have never seen a single argument which actually holds any water.

Perhaps you have not exactly been debating people very knowledgable on it, then.

Labelling 'creation science' wrong is not an unfair act, they have been shown to be wrong many many times, under many different guises. Why the hell shouldn't we criticize it?

I didn't say that.

If you read my post you will see that I was replying to a post in which The White Knight suggests that they shouldn't even be considered scientists.

Shaun · Jun 30, 2006

Valentinian said:
I'm afraid that you don't know much about it; nor the people who believe in it then. That's certianly not the case.

Well if you seem to know so much about creation science, then can you please give us a decent point on my it is a good theory?

Søren · Jun 30, 2006

Shaun said:
Well if you seem to know so much about creation science, then can you please give us a decent point on my it is a good theory?

I certianly don't claim to know a great deal about it from an intellectually scientific point of view -- what I was doing, however, was pointing out a few things which you and Sam had said which were incorrect in regard to the history and philosophy behind creation science, something which I do know a little about.

Shaun · Jun 30, 2006

Valentinian said:
I certianly don't claim to know a great deal about it from an intellectually scientific point of view -- what I was doing, however, was pointing out a few things which you and Sam had said which were incorrect in regard to the history and philosophy behind creation science, something which I do know a little about.

Well i never really said anything about creationism, and i did disagree with The White Knights statement about scientists cannot be creationists or whatever, but you have to admit that for a scientist to just accept a theory, its fair enough if they have done some research, but to acpet without question does seem odd.

Valentin the II · Jul 1, 2006

Valentinian said:
For instance, Dr. Raymond Damandian is a young earth creationist, so if that is your definition of a "fanatic of Christ", then yes, I suppose I am telling you that.

Ah! But what does he do? If he is a geologyst, biologyst, etc.... than he is a scientist.
But if he is one of these wackos who twist the laws of science to fit their precious bible (the so called "creationist scientists") than I can hardly call him a scientist.

Shaun said:
but you have to admit that for a scientist to just accept a theory, its fair enough if they have done some research, but to acpet without question does seem odd.

Half of the scientists in the world blindly folow theyr obsecuer theories, that doesnt proove anysing.

It seems that Im fighting on 2 fronts :tongue:

.

Søren · Jul 1, 2006

Valentin the II said:
Ah! But what does he do? If he is a geologyst, biologyst, etc.... than he is a scientist.
But if he is one of these wackos who twist the laws of science to fit their precious bible (the so called "creationist scientists") than I can hardly call him a scientist.

If you'ld read mt previous post you would have seen that he most emphatically is a scientist :

Dr Raymond Damadian - invented Magnetic Resonance Imaging - received - the United States' National Medal of Technology - the Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award for invention and innovation - was elected to the National Inventors Hall of Fame. (very, very few have achieved this)

Happy?

Sam · Jul 1, 2006

Valentinian said:
I'm afraid that you probably don't know much about it; nor the people who believe in it then. That's certianly not the case.

So, if I disagree with it, that means I don't know anything about it? Either that or it means I'm familiar enough with it to know that it's a crock. After all, if it weren't a crock, it would be in classrooms being taught as we speak, but the scientific community saw it for what it was and stamped it out, and then the legal system saw it for what it was and stamped it out. After being beaten down by the courts and the scientific community, they gave it a quick polish over, a new name (intelligent design), and tried again, only to fail again. So then they gave it a quick polish over yet again, a new name (critical analysis) yet again, and now they are trying yet again.

I don't have to know a damn thing about the people who believe in creation science to know that it is a religious theory. The religiosity of creation science shines through in it's criticisms and ideas (and in the fact that it's mostly just criticisms of evolution and biology, and not much actual alternative substance besides 'goddidit').

I took this quote from the main page of the Institute for Creation Research, the home of creation science; "will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5)." No, not religious at all. How wrong I was to assume it had religious roots.

If you honestly think that 'creation science' is actually a scientific theory, then let's go over the fine points of it, shall we? If it's the only thing that will convince you of how fraudulent it is, I'll do it gladly.

Valentinian said:
Perhaps you have not exactly been debating people very knowledgable on it, then.

They aren't knowledgable on evolution either, but they still trumpet it's failure from the rooftops.

Valentinian said:
I didn't say that.

If you read my post you will see that I was replying to a post in which The White Knight suggests that they shouldn't even be considered scientists.

To be honest, I don't understand how a scientist could believe that creation science is superior, it really isn't.

Evolution and Creationism

Evolution and Creationism

Here's looking at you, kid!

Logical Bulldog

From silence

No retreat, no surrender; that is Spartan law.

From silence

Logical Bulldog

Here's looking at you, kid!

Mr Common Sense

Look to the stars

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

I'll have what she's having.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

You talkin' to me?

Non scholae sed vitae

It was Beauty killed the Beast.

I'll be back!

&#1793;

I'll have what she's having.

&#1793;

I'll have what she's having.

&#1793;

Here's looking at you, kid!

&#1793;

It was Beauty killed the Beast.

&#1793;

It was Beauty killed the Beast.

I'll have what she's having.

&#1793;

Here's looking at you, kid!

Join the Total War Center!

Medieval II on TWC Wiki

Wiki Links

Rome on TWC Wiki

Total War Center on the Wiki

Total War Series on TWC Wiki

Modding Information on TWC Wiki

Thread Statistics

Site Polls

Axis & Allies

Battleship

Checkers

Chess

Clue

Go

Monopoly

Risk

Stratego

Other

܁

܁

܁

܁

܁

܁