Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 76 of 283 (115758)
06-16-2004 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by NosyNed
06-16-2004 12:47 PM


She might
also ask you to 'find' that very first first first ingredient from which it all sprang. Nothing plus nothing makes nothing. Even though I believe nothing is something, it denotes absence of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2004 12:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 77 of 283 (115808)
06-16-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-24-2004 10:21 PM


quote:
If you do believe that all mammals share a common ancestor--would this have laid eggs--if so, wouldn't it continue to produce eggs (natural selection: if a mother is able to produce multiple young at once, the population grows much faster. Also, the young of egg-laying creatures don't depend on their mother's existence, whereas the young of creatures that develop in the womb--if the mother dies, so does the child!)
i know this post is a bit late in the discussion but whatever.
actually you have that a bit backwards. egg-laying animals don't lay lots of eggs so that they can reproduce faster and it's all happy and good that they don't have to care for the young.
rather. egg laying animals don't care for their young, so they have to lay lots of eggs in order to guarantee that some reach adulthood. animals that bear live young have a better chance of surviving to adulthood and those that bear live young AND care for their young to a well developed age have an even better chance at surviving. plus. animals that raise their young can pass on learned knowledge... eg they can learn to use tools and pass this on to the next generation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-24-2004 10:21 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 78 of 283 (115815)
06-16-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by sfs
06-07-2004 11:37 AM


yeah and humans used to be taller a LONG time ago... before agriculture. the height and health plunged then. yeah. grains are bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by sfs, posted 06-07-2004 11:37 AM sfs has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 283 (115852)
06-16-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by almeyda
06-16-2004 12:44 AM


Almeyda,
Not trying to pile on, just offering some encouragement. You are finally asking questions instead of quoting creationists sites. Even if, in the end, you decide that evolution and abiogenesis is wrong you are still taking the best route, asking questions.
Just a little analogy that helps me separate the origin of life and the origin of speciation (ie species). Imagine that GM wants to build cars. What they need is iron containing the right amounts of trace elements (eg carbon). To GM, it doesn't matter where that metal came from, just as long as it will work. Leprechauns could have poofed it out of thin air, but iron is iron so it doesn't matter where it came from. This is similar to how abiogenesis (the origin of life) and evolution (the origin of species) is treated. Abiogenesis is the process of mining iron ore and smelting it, and evolution is the process of molding it into a car. Hope this little analogy helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by almeyda, posted 06-16-2004 12:44 AM almeyda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 80 of 283 (115859)
06-16-2004 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by almeyda
06-16-2004 12:44 AM


Well, let me give it a try. And you are doing great to ask.
Evolution is actually two different things. One is a collection of observations. We can look at the animals around us and see that they are quite different. Even pretty similar ones seem to vary widely. This was seen and noted long, long ago. The big question was, "what were the mechanisims that caused such variety?"
Two giants, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both came up with a mechanism that explained how all that variety came about. They did so independantly, and about the same time. The mechanism they described, almost 150 years ago now, was Natural Selection.
Since then, the theory that came to be known as the Theory of Evolution has stood up remarkably well. It has and still is challenged and as we learn more, it will change to explain the observations, the new information, that is found.
But it does not deal with how life began. It simply describes and explains what we see. And it does so in a way far superior to Creation.
While many people claim that creation cannot happen by natural processes, it is only a matter of time until that is simply proven wrong. It will happen. Already, it has been possible to build most of the basic amino acids. The rest will follow in time.
But even that will have no effect on the TOE. It simply does not deal with Origin.
Creation can only be accepted by denying all of the physical evidence around us.
I have asked you several times about where the stars are located. That is important. If they really are where they seem to be, then there has been billions and billions of years for evolution to take place.
But the issue of stars is important for yet another reason. If the stars are really where they appear to be, then we can say that the rules we see around us, things like the rate of decay for various elements, things like the speed or light, things like the force of gravity, things like the way the four forces interact, have remaind constant over those billions and billions of years.
Given those two things, the stars are really where they seem to be, and the rules have remained constant, all of the other observations fall in line.
The Earth is old.
Many species have died out over the years.
There was an order and progression.
Homo Sapiens is a late comer and just recently showed up.
That change happened.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by almeyda, posted 06-16-2004 12:44 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 283 (115955)
06-17-2004 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by NosyNed
06-16-2004 12:47 PM


Re: and to belabor the point still further
I will try to get as many replies as possible, but there are many & i need time to read carefully and think carefully however this one caught my eye...
NosyNed if everyone here stated what you said then you could no longer call creation just religion only because its based on Gods word, when evolution which is supposedly pure natural processes are open to the possibility of a creator. It would be somewhat logical to admit that they are both scientific and both have religious aspects. Even if evolutionists believe this is definately no deity it is still a religion, a belief that our world and life has evolved on its own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2004 12:47 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2004 4:09 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 83 by Loudmouth, posted 06-17-2004 1:11 PM almeyda has replied
 Message 84 by jar, posted 06-17-2004 3:39 PM almeyda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 82 of 283 (115962)
06-17-2004 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by almeyda
06-17-2004 2:42 AM


Missing the point
when evolution which is supposedly pure natural processes are open to the possibility of a creator
The point is that saying God created the first life forms does absolutely nothing to the ToE. NOTHING! It simply answers the question of the origin of life. From Darwins "Origin of Species" to today the ToE does not talk about or depend upon any of the details of how life arose. It only discusses how life forms change after they exist.
If you think otherwise answer the question put to you. How would God creating life have any affect on the ToE. Not from a philosophical view but from a nuts and bolts view in discussing evoluion and how it unfolds. The fact is that a majority of Christians already accept that God caused everything but that Darwinian evolution is the best eplanation for how life changed on this planet.
You seem to be using the word "religion" in some odd way. Could you please define what is and is not a "religion"? In the context here it is not simply a "belief". If that is what you mean by the word "religion" then how is Christianity different from believing that, in fact, the dog did eat Johnnies homework?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by almeyda, posted 06-17-2004 2:42 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by almeyda, posted 06-18-2004 4:27 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 283 (116063)
06-17-2004 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by almeyda
06-17-2004 2:42 AM


Re: and to belabor the point still further
quote:
NosyNed if everyone here stated what you said then you could no longer call creation just religion only because its based on Gods word, when evolution which is supposedly pure natural processes are open to the possibility of a creator. It would be somewhat logical to admit that they are both scientific and both have religious aspects. Even if evolutionists believe this is definately no deity it is still a religion, a belief that our world and life has evolved on its own.
If you don't mind, I thought I would jump in on this one with a quick reply.
Creationists: Believe in the inerrancy of the Genesis account without evidence, and sometimes in the face of contradicting evidence.
Evolutionists: Accept the theory of evolution because of the evidence, and in the lack of contradicting evidence.
There is no evidence that the Genesis account is right, and in fact it has been shown to be wrong in several areas. It is the belief that Genesis is the literal words of a diety that make creationism a religion. Evolution is quite the opposite. It would not have a leg to stand on by itself without the support of evidence. Evolution has never been taken as true in the absence of evidence, and therefore it was never "believed" in through faith, but instead "accepted" as reliable because it is supported by objective evidence. These are two different paradigms, acceptance because of evidence and belief in the absence of evidence. This is why evolution is not a religion.
Perhaps you should ask yourself this question. Do you believe a literal Genesis is true because of your faith or because of the evidence? Are there people of different faiths (eg Hinduism) that agree that Genesis is a true, literal account? If not, why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by almeyda, posted 06-17-2004 2:42 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by almeyda, posted 06-18-2004 4:33 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 84 of 283 (116106)
06-17-2004 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by almeyda
06-17-2004 2:42 AM


Re: and to belabor the point still further
Sorry, but again, you have things catawhompus.
Evolution is Science. It does not deal with the origin or purpose of life.
Creationism is religion. It REQUIRES the existence and intervention of GOD.
Big difference.
If you say that GOD is the origin of life, it changes nothing related to the TOE. Remove GOD and insert chance and it changes nothing related to the TOE.
But if you remove GOD from Creationism, just what is left?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by almeyda, posted 06-17-2004 2:42 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 283 (116309)
06-18-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by NosyNed
06-17-2004 4:09 AM


Re: Missing the point
quote:
The point is that saying God created the first life forms does absolutely nothing to the ToE. NOTHING! It simply answers the question of the origin of life.
Which God are you speaking of?. The one in the Bible?. But evolution and the Bible are not compatable, they contradict each other in so many things. Have you ever wondered how one man can believe in evolution and be a athiest then another believe in evolution and believe in God. How are these views compatible unless one has compromised his Bible to fit the ToE?.
quote:
You seem to be using the word "religion" in some odd way. Could you please define what is and is not a "religion"? In the context here it is not simply a "belief". If that is what you mean by the word "religion" then how is Christianity different from believing that, in fact, the dog did eat Johnnies homework?
Johnnies homework does not answer the question of why we are here, how we are here, when did we come etc. It is not a foundation of origins, life, meaning (if any)etc. A worldview if you will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2004 4:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 283 (116312)
06-18-2004 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Loudmouth
06-17-2004 1:11 PM


Re: and to belabor the point still further
quote:
Creationists: Believe in the inerrancy of the Genesis account without evidence, and sometimes in the face of contradicting evidence.
Definately not true. They believe that real science fits the Bible. And the evidence fits the Bible. If they didnt they would not waste their time with a false religion. The whole point of creation is great because it shows people that we can trust God from the very first verse and not to mans theories.
quote:
Evolutionists: Accept the theory of evolution because of the evidence, and in the lack of contradicting evidence
The fossil record has all but hindered evolutions attempts at calling there theory a fact.
quote:
Perhaps you should ask yourself this question. Do you believe a literal Genesis is true because of your faith or because of the evidence? Are there people of different faiths (eg Hinduism) that agree that Genesis is a true, literal account? If not, why not?
I believe in a literal genesis because of the evidence i found with AiG. The evidence i read in creation magazine. And the evidence that bankrupts evolution. No not by faith. My faith came afterwards, luckily im not one of those christians who doesnt know anything but just believes. And lastly about hinduism and genesis well i dont know if they dont it may be because its based on a different religion then theres.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Loudmouth, posted 06-17-2004 1:11 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NosyNed, posted 06-18-2004 5:01 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2004 6:18 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 89 by mark24, posted 06-18-2004 6:23 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 90 by Loudmouth, posted 06-21-2004 1:46 PM almeyda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 87 of 283 (116323)
06-18-2004 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by almeyda
06-18-2004 4:33 AM


facts
The fossil record has all but hindered evolutions attempts at calling there theory a fact
Then go to the thread on fossil sorting for "simple" and show how it fits with a flood. You make these ridiculous statements and don't seem to have any support.
Fossil sorting for simple
It isn't a matter of hindering here. The fossil ordering completely destroys the idea of there being one global, recent flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by almeyda, posted 06-18-2004 4:33 AM almeyda has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 88 of 283 (116341)
06-18-2004 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by almeyda
06-18-2004 4:33 AM


Re: and to belabor the point still further
Given your rapid retreat from a discussion of AiG's science it seems to me that you ARE one of those Christians who "just believes". You clearly don't understand the evidence well enough to defend AiG's claims - just as you can't support your assertion of "hundreds" of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus (although you tried to use such an assertion as evidence you couldn't find even one prophecy that you were prepared to discuss).
It is quite obivous that your "evidence" consists only of beleiving what other humans say - without ever checking out the actual evidence itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by almeyda, posted 06-18-2004 4:33 AM almeyda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 89 of 283 (116342)
06-18-2004 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by almeyda
06-18-2004 4:33 AM


Re: and to belabor the point still further
Almeyda,
The fossil record has all but hindered evolutions attempts at calling there theory a fact.
Do you remember the post I made on the amazing correlation of cladistics & stratigraphy?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by almeyda, posted 06-18-2004 4:33 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 283 (117139)
06-21-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by almeyda
06-18-2004 4:33 AM


Re: and to belabor the point still further
quote:
Definately not true. They believe that real science fits the Bible. And the evidence fits the Bible. If they didnt they would not waste their time with a false religion.
Like I said, "They believe" is what it really comes down to. They believe that the contradicting evidence doesn't exist. They believe that sun shrinkage, lunar dust, population increase, etc are reliable ways to measure the age of the earth. They believe that all you have to do is believe really, really hard and it must be so. Sorry, real science doesn't work that way.
quote:
The fossil record has all but hindered evolutions attempts at calling there theory a fact.
Then maybe you can explain why we never find a rabbit and a dinosaur in the same layer. Maybe you can explain why the fossil record matches up with predictions from the theory of evolution. Mark24's challenge to explain the correlation between stratigraphy and cladistics is a great start.
quote:
I believe in a literal genesis because of the evidence i found with AiG.
Sorry, that's not science. You have to look at ALL the evidence, including the evidence that falsifies special creation and a 6,000 year old earth. It's not enough to simply say you don't trust radiometric dating, you have to show how it is actually wrong. AiG has yet to do this, so I can't see how you claim to have strong evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by almeyda, posted 06-18-2004 4:33 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024