Creation vs Evolution Debate

You know what, we're honestly NOT going to get anywhere debating on which one happened. People believe what they want to.

I think the REAL problem lies more in Creationists wanting to teach the creation theory in science classes in schools to kids. It should be in Religious Studies.

Wouldn't that be a way of mandating religion?

Originally posted by ZGhorus

Originally posted by ebe51


As an example you will here about trees found standing up right in Earth layers which by evolution should have took billions of years to form. Yet, trees want stand up for billions of year while waiting for the dirt to pile up. A tree should fall and rot.

perhaps, if we didnt cut them down, a tree will survive for that long, the flora and fauna were very different that long ago, the fossilisation of plant matter could be explained by the good ol' meteorite strike theory. or it could just be the worlds most lethargic tree. i cant comment for sure as i wasnt there, just a theory. i will watch the video when i have a spare 5 mins.

The so-called "Polystrate trees" issue, which ebe apparently imagines is a great point against modern geology, is actually explained perfectly well by modern geologists. You can find what they say if you search on the Talkorigins website, which is a great resource full of answers to the drivel that muppets like ebe are constantly reciting.

Originally posted by jbondo
drivel drivel
...liberal rhetoric....carries on drivelling

And so yet another American moron reveals who couldn't care less about the science one way or the other, the whole thing means nothing to him beyond a chance for political posturing. Thanks for the confession, now go away and do not speak again.

Originally posted by ebe51
Wait the big bang theory does say everything started from nothing

He couldn't even get that right. Just shut up, you empty vessel.

reply to post by ebe51

And an awesome plus is the debate is with that jerk Michael Shermer from Skeptic magazine, he lost. I like seeing Mickey lose.

Can you please describe to me how in what way did Mickey loose this debate ?
And again , for the 10000 time, NO SCIENTIST HAS EVER SAID THAT WE ALL CAME FROM A SIMPLE ROCK! That is just stupid christian propaganda to make it all sound stupid.





[edit on 10-10-2007 by tep200377]

Originally posted by yeti101
jbondo , you realise theat homo-erectus is nothing like the modern humans?

this discovery doesnt undermine evolution at all. If true it just means habilus & erestus shared a common ancestor. Even in that article it points out scientists used to think humans evolved from neanderthals which is not the case as they lived side by side for thousands of years. Same thing in this case.

to the creationists- do you think god is honest or dishonest? becuase we can see humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48- now if we shared a common ancestor we must be able to see a "fused" chromosome in human DNA which is EXACTLY what we find. So either humans evolved from ape like creatures or God made humans LOOK like we evolved from ape like creatures.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by yeti101]

I reallly love for the ID's to explain this for me. Its a classic example we should add to the debate when prisoner Ken Hovind is in action. BTW: is he out yet ?

it's so fun to see a boxing match where, instead of fighting against his opponent, one boxer attacks a big ol' set of straw men..

that's what kent hovind does.
he says "evolution means this"
...but evolution does not mean what he says it means

reply to post by ZGhorus



Im a Christian but i still believe in evolution

I just cant understand why so many Christians and Scientists are so stubborn and more importantly naive

I believe that the whole 7 days things is more metophorical

the problem occurs when Christians take it too literally

and for ZGhorus

firstly Slayer lyrics are so bad

their music is quite good but just speaking a load of anti-chritian crap just shows how unintellectual they are

and there are two explanation for your point

firstly the Bible could have just not mentioned that adam and eve had a daughter or daughters

yes its still incest but maybe that was the done thing back in the day

or adam and eve is metophorical aswell

all Christians need to know is that sin came into the world

If there was no death before sin entered the world through Adam and
Eve, how can evolution have taken place?
Or is this a too simple answer

[edit on 28-10-2007 by fugifigu]

The bottom line is, the Bible claims to be the truth, while Darwin has claimed evolution to be a theory.

I have a mixed belief where evolution WAS created by a God AKA something beyond our understanding, and not a deity to worship. Evolution is probable, because I can see it in us humans everyday, as we cope with our fears with different defense mechanisms, and we realize and learn new things every day.

I'd say that the more you seek, and the more you are willing to understanding, the more wiser that you become, the more you are allowing yourself to evolve, which is in the human nature.

Hello all,

Sorry it's been awhile sense I've posted. I started this thread while I was between projects at work. Then all of a sudden allot of projects came my way and I have been very very busy working and have not had the time play around on the forum. At last now most the project work is wrapping up and I'm starting to get some spare time. I don't know how long the spare time is going to last but I'm here now. My line of work, industrial electrical and instrumentation design, is like a roller coaster, feast or famine.

Anyway before taking a leave of absents from this thread the last thing ask to me was...

Please present actual scientific evidence that god/creation is real.

Wow, how can I prove anything 100% true. I can show the evidence points to creation as a better THEORY then evolution.
So, lets work like that and see if we can tell which is a better theory.

But before I can do that there are 2 points I would like to bring up.

1st is please put your moral opinions aside, what that means just because you don't like what the bible says it doesn't mean it's wrong on the bases you don't like it, or saying something "how can you believe in a God that does (insert a bad thing here)". That's not evidence that's moral objects / opinions.

2nd There is so so so much to debate on, historical text, big bang, biology, fossils, geological, and the list goes on and on. Through me a bone and tell me what areas you want talk about. What do you think is compelling evidence for evolution? I'll try and go the direction you want to go in.






[edit on 7-11-2007 by ebe51]

reply to post by ebe51


how about this, prove to me that kent hovind actually understands the theory of evolution or basic science...

listen, you can't provide a single shred of evidence for the existence of any deity, let alone proof that said being created everything

even if your theory SOUNDS better (which it doesn't, as it flies in the face of evidence), it needs to be supported by EVIDENCE

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ebe51

 

how about this, prove to me that kent hovind actually understands the theory of evolution or basic science...

listen, you can't provide a single shred of evidence for the existence of any deity, let alone proof that said being created everything

even if your theory SOUNDS better (which it doesn't, as it flies in the face of evidence), it needs to be supported by EVIDENCE

Forget Kent Hovind the fact he cheated on his taxes has nothing to with creation or evolution evidence.

Now as far as EVIDENCE to support creation ok, let go there, but first I need ot know in what area of science you want to go to. I would have to write a long novel to cover all the evidence. So let's pick at it point by point. Pick a point that interested in and we'll start there.

Originally posted by ebe51
Forget Kent Hovind the fact he cheated on his taxes has nothing to with creation or evolution evidence.

just like kent hovind's arguments have nothing to do with reality. hovind was a discredited nutjob before the tax thing.

Now as far as EVIDENCE to support creation ok, let go there, but first I need ot know in what area of science you want to go to. I would have to write a long novel to cover all the evidence. So let's pick at it point by point. Pick a point that interested in and we'll start there.

ok, god
prove the central pillar of the theory with evidence
or how about the whole "flood" thing?
the reason why radiometric dating shows the earth as being older than creation accounts?

anything will do, i'll let you pick your own starting point.

Ok, radiometric dating first then the flood thing...

Radiometric dating has serous problems the way it is applied and works.
If you were to make an experiment to test radiometric accuracy you would need have a control. That is rock you can test of a KNOWN age and see what radiometric date comes back. Well this has been done, and not once or twice but EVERY TIME a rock of a known age comes back billions of years old. When Mount. St. Helens erupted in the 80's Lava that turned to rock was test....Got to make a quick point here. Radiometric dating only can date the time between when liquid material turn to solid materials, so in the 80's when the liquid Lava turn to rock it should have dated the only a few years old. Yet, we see a date of billions of years. So how can we say radiometric dating works when we clearly see flaws in it.

In addition here is some other flaws info about radiometric dating problems...and yes these people have a collage education...
www.icr.org...

Also check out myths about radiometric dating...some creations ,like Kent hovind, has made some bad claims which make creationist look bad...
www.icr.org...

Further more there other dating method which show a much younger time frame, however these other methods are assumed not to work not because the science is bad but ONLY on the bases it makes the Earth less then billions of years of old.

One such method is looking a the level of carbon-14 in coal. There's too much carbon-14 in coal for it to even be millions of years old suggesting a much younger age.

Also look at comets. Comets are known not be billions of years old, so where do they come from? An oort cloud!?
Here's a double standard, I believe in god, yet because we can't observe him he is assumed false.
Scientist believes in an oort could, yet they can't observe it. So, it's assumed True....
There NO evidence for an oort cloud other then lack of better theory.

Go to go..Work is calling me...I'll pick up this and the flood a little later today or tomorrow.

Originally posted by bigbert81
You know what, we're honestly NOT going to get anywhere debating on which one happened. People believe what they want to.

I think the REAL problem lies more in Creationists wanting to teach the creation theory in science classes in schools to kids. It should be in Religious Studies.

Wouldn't that be a way of mandating religion?

The real problem is that they teach false information as proof of evolution in your textbooks in class. Forget about creation vs evolution give me a textbook with out pilkdown man and the evolution of the hourse or the fetus diagrams.

How can you expect me to trust people who are miss leading our youth? The fact that the ROM (royal ontario museum) still has a diagram showing me the evolution of the horse which has been disproven and thousands of kids walk by it every year and accept it as fact.

I'm interested in this discussion as I has been studying the debate and the info now for about 10 years. Not saying I know it all but I have had alot of info pass my way about problems with the theory and even the fact of calling it that but saying that the creation argument which has evidence as well is a belief only? Frankly they are on the same ground because it boils down to what do you put your faith in? Macro Evolutionary Theroy or a Creation Theory

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by ebe51
Ok, radiometric dating first then the flood thing...

Radiometric dating has serous problems the way it is applied and works.
If you were to make an experiment to test radiometric accuracy you would need have a control. That is rock you can test of a KNOWN age and see what radiometric date comes back. Well this has been done, and not once or twice but EVERY TIME a rock of a known age comes back billions of years old.

incorrect. back this statement up with evidence

When Mount. St. Helens erupted in the 80's Lava that turned to rock was test....Got to make a quick point here. Radiometric dating only can date the time between when liquid material turn to solid materials, so in the 80's when the liquid Lava turn to rock it should have dated the only a few years old. Yet, we see a date of billions of years. So how can we say radiometric dating works when we clearly see flaws in it.

you shouldn't use radiometric dating in this instance.
just like saying you got a false reading when you used a rectal thermometer on liquid helium.

In addition here is some other flaws info about radiometric dating problems...and yes these people have a collage education...
www.icr.org...

so?
argument from authority there...
an illiterate man can be right if he has his facts straight.

sorry, too much jargon here for me...

Also check out myths about radiometric dating...some creations ,like Kent hovind, has made some bad claims which make creationist look bad...
www.icr.org...

Some organic materials do give radiocarbon ages in excess of 50,000 "radiocarbon years." However, it is important to distinguish between "radiocarbon years" and calendar years. These two measures of time will only be the same if all of the assumptions which go into the conventional radiocarbon dating technique are valid.

read the bold part as "These two measures of time will only be the same if you assume that a constant remains a constant"

clear agenda-based bs.

Further more there other dating method which show a much younger time frame, however these other methods are assumed not to work not because the science is bad but ONLY on the bases it makes the Earth less then billions of years of old.

no... it's because certain techniques are only used on certain timescales

One such method is looking a the level of carbon-14 in coal. There's too much carbon-14 in coal for it to even be millions of years old suggesting a much younger age.

carbon 14 isn't used for stuff as old as coal, it's used for anything 50k years old or less

Also look at comets. Comets are known not be billions of years old, so where do they come from? An oort cloud!?
Here's a double standard, I believe in god, yet because we can't observe him he is assumed false.
Scientist believes in an oort could, yet they can't observe it. So, it's assumed True....
There NO evidence for an oort cloud other then lack of better theory.

and observation...

Go to go..Work is calling me...I'll pick up this and the flood a little later today or tomorrow.

hope you do a better job and provide evidence instead of agenda next time

A very quick reply - don't count off for spellling I've the time to proof read this.

Originally posted by ebe51
Ok, radiometric dating first then the flood thing...

Radiometric dating has serous ....

incorrect. back this statement up with evidence

Ok, it will take me some time to hunt down the paper on this again...
In the mean time if you believe this is incorrect, please, provide info showing where an object of know date came back with the proper date.

When Mount. St. Helens erupted in the 80's Lava that turned to rock was test...

you shouldn't use radiometric dating in this instance.
just like saying you got a false reading when you used a rectal thermometer on liquid helium.

why not radiometric dating is suppose measure the time it takes liquid to turn to solid....

In addition here is some other flaws info about radiometric dating problems...and yes these people have a collage education...
www.icr.org...

so?
argument from authority there...
an illiterate man can be right if he has his facts straight.

sorry, too much jargon here for me...

Argument from authority...what's do that actually mean. The guys writing this stuff came from many of collages the guys writing the evolution stuff.

Also check out myths about radiometric dating...some creations ,like Kent hovind, has made some bad claims which make creationist look bad...
www.icr.org...

read the bold part as "These two measures of time will only be the same if you assume that a constant remains a constant"

clear agenda-based bs.

This constant remains a constant is a weak aurgement, however with that said look at what's happen with the speed of light lately. It constantisy is in question now, because there is some evidience showing it's speed may have varied over the years. This was in the news only few months ago.

Further more there other dating method which show a much younger time frame, however these other methods are assumed not to work not because the science is bad but ONLY on the bases it makes the Earth less then billions of years of old.

no... it's because certain techniques are only used on certain timescales

not really understand what you saying

One such method is looking a the level of carbon-14 in coal. There's too much carbon-14 in coal for it to even be millions of years old suggesting a much younger age.

carbon 14 isn't used for stuff as old as coal, it's used for anything 50k years old or less

carbon 14 has been applied to coal. The idea was that you could test the carbon-14 level because per creation coal is not 50k, thus look and see if you find the carbon 14, and they did. I'll find the paper on that too, A little later.

Also look at comets. Comets are known not be billions of years old, so where do they come from? An oort cloud!?
Here's a double standard, I believe in god, yet because we can't observe him he is assumed false.
Scientist believes in an oort could, yet they can't observe it. So, it's assumed True....
There NO evidence for an oort cloud other then lack of better theory.

and observation...

What observation...were is the pictures of the oort cloud, what has been observed other then comets can't be billions of years old? Nothing!

Go to go..Work is calling me...I'll pick up this and the flood a little later today or tomorrow.

hope you do a better job and provide evidence instead of agenda next time

reply to post by ebe51

Dinosaur/dragons aren't in the bible look again...Here just one passage I found quickly...

There is NO references to dinosaurs in the bible.
There is however names that hasnt been translated, and by description be linked to present animals as comodo varans, hipos, elephants .. etc..

If dinosaurs lived amongs people 3-4 thousand years ago, i believe theyd mention that these creatures where enourmous. Wouldnt it be a point to mention that some of these creatures streched them self 10 meters in height ? And that the raptors hunted in groups and raided villages ( i would assume that this would be a problem worth mentioning in the bible )

Not just small lines like this:
It eats grass like an ox. ( could be komodo varan )
It moves his tail like a cedar.
Its bones are like beams of bronze, ( could be komodo varan )
His ribs like bars of iron. ( could be komodo varan )
He is the first of the ways of God.
He lies under the lotus trees, in a covert of reeds and marsh. ( could be saltwater crocodile )

Example of how big a crocodile could be : www.maj.com...







[edit on 9-11-2007 by tep200377]

Originally posted by ebe51
Ok, it will take me some time to hunt down the paper on this again...
In the mean time if you believe this is incorrect, please, provide info showing where an object of know date came back with the proper date.

i don't need to do that to prove radiometric dating proper... all i'd need to do is demonstrate that the constants used are correct.

why not radiometric dating is suppose measure the time it takes liquid to turn to solid....

yes, but they used the incorrect method of dating, i forget which one is proper but i remember that the "study" was repeatedly criticized for using an improper method

Argument from authority...what's do that actually mean. The guys writing this stuff came from many of collages the guys writing the evolution stuff.

so?
they went to college and that is what makes them credible?
richard dawkins is credible not because he has a degree but because he's researched his topic extensively. he has mountains of knowledge on the subject.
he's correct because he properly applies evidence, not because he's an authority.

This constant remains a constant is a weak aurgement, however with that said look at what's happen with the speed of light lately. It constantisy is in question now, because there is some evidience showing it's speed may have varied over the years. This was in the news only few months ago.

speed of light?
constantly in question?
in the news?
it was pseudoscientific BS that slipped out of the news. it was even addressed by members here on ATS
demonstrate that it isn't a constant, there are millions of demonstrations that radioactive decay IS constant.

not really understand what you saying

you're saying that the application of methods is agenda based, i'm saying that you're wrong.

carbon 14 has been applied to coal. The idea was that you could test the carbon-14 level because per creation coal is not 50k, thus look and see if you find the carbon 14, and they did. I'll find the paper on that too, A little later.

yes, i understand that. just like you can use a rectal thermometer to measure the temperature of liquid helium.

it won't come out properly

Also look at comets. Comets are known not be billions of years old, so where do they come from? An oort cloud!?
Here's a double standard, I believe in god, yet because we can't observe him he is assumed false.
Scientist believes in an oort could, yet they can't observe it. So, it's assumed True....
There NO evidence for an oort cloud other then lack of better theory.

and observation...

What observation...were is the pictures of the oort cloud, what has been observed other then comets can't be billions of years old? Nothing!


nothing?
no, we have a working hypothesis based on indirect observation
it's not a theory yet, but the oort cloud is an explanation that works based on the available evidence

that's how science works, we wait for the evidence instead of saying "goddunit"

oh, could future writings please come from a peer-reviewed scientific source instead of some agenda based institute?