Creation vs Evolution Debate

Ok, first off many of the papers at icr are peer-reviewed, not all but many. That's why I'm using them as source. Look at bottom they have references.

2nd you question credibility, well if I'm reading what you writing correctly the credible people are the ones believe evolution, because you already think evolution is the right path. If this false statement the please tell what you consider as credible people or an authority.

3rd you said they're agenda based.....yea, but that's a double standard in one way or another all of science is agenda base. What's a hypothesis, it's an educated guess which is trying to be proved. So, when you make observations or experiments your looking to prove the hypothesis. That your agenda. The oort cloud is good example of that. The indirect observation is that comets don't last billions of years thus the oort cloud, thus an agenda to prove the oort cloud. Well, I could say the Earth being here is an indirect observation of God. Also suppose by some means I had a way prove 99.99% in creation, would you want it to true? If you answer No then you have a byes, if you answer yes then should be objective and look the evidence creationist put forth. They have some really hard questions for you to answer if evolution is true. So far we've only talked about dating there is allot more out there. Everybody in science has the agenda of finding the truth. Creationist think that is truth is God and they want to prove and defend it. Your doing the same thing your just on the other side of the fence.


Ok, now as far as dating method....that method doesn't work, can't date things that young, you did it wrong,....blah blah blah... So, what main stream science is saying is no dating method can be used for things younger then 10,000 years or so. The only dating method that work are the ones that have the dates of billions of years. When creationist date things they assumed wrong, however main stream science have has inconstant they are still assumed right, because they constantly are improving there methods. Science is constantly changing there Theories per observations that are made....like the oort cloud...Sounds like a wife, she always right because she can change her mind anytime she wants. You see this all the time, can't prove it, but using indirect evidence we'll change our theory and assume it's true. So creation methods are wrong, and main stream is right because when they're wrong they're still right, because they can change there theories using indirect evidence and assumption to appear to be right. That's not real science that's junk. The only thing wrong with creation dating methods is that they don't fit the time-line main stream science wants. So in rolls the excesses.

You want a peer-review paper go start looking at 1970's science magazine for the articles on radiometrichalos. I don't think there has been a peer-reviewed paper disproving his findings, as of yet. I might be wrong, but I haven't found one yet.


I got to get back to work, more later.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by ebe51]

[edit on 9-11-2007 by ebe51]

The the theory of evolution is seperate from creation. Evolution itself explains how things transform and what not, spontaneous generation is some how a scientific theory. They are all theories, since know one can see an account, or have proven fact that the world was created one way or the other

Originally posted by quixotical
The the theory of evolution is seperate from creation. Evolution itself explains how things transform and what not, spontaneous generation is some how a scientific theory. They are all theories, since know one can see an account, or have proven fact that the world was created one way or the other

Well, I disagree with the word theory, it should not be used with Evolution. It should be the Hypothesis of Evolution, because I think there is enough observations against it to drop it's Theroy status.

The Evolution of Bacterial Flagellum should be enough to drop the entire Evolution hypothesis.

If you cant get past evolving one critical part of a bacteria, you cant get bacteria, and if you cant get past bacteria... you cant have evolution.

So someone explain how the bacteria evolved the Flagellum... scientists say its impossible for it to evolve on its own. its designed, and that it spins faster that most car engines, 10k+ RPM.

Ready,... GO!

Originally posted by Methuselah
The Evolution of Bacterial Flagellum should be enough to drop the entire Evolution hypothesis.

Not really. There are possible explanations for this system, some reading for you...

linky

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Methuselah
The Evolution of Bacterial Flagellum should be enough to drop the entire Evolution hypothesis.

Not really. There are possible explanations for this system, some reading for you...

linky

I read some of this, but I don't have time to read all 7 pages. However from what I did skim read I didn't see were an explaintion was given on there origin. The artical said all bacterial flagellum came from a common ancestor. I don't disagree with that, I disagree on the time line and who made the 1st common ancestor. I'm fine with saying God made the 1st bacterial flagellum and all others came from there?

Apparently these guys tell what its for and some steps in how it may have evolved or its possible uses as far as needs go. but they dont bring up in detail the steps needed to put the flagellum in place. they admit that it could not have evolved in a single step, more like a 20 step process in which only half of those steps are possible to take place on its own. the other 10 could not possibly evolve on their own due to dependencies. 10 different instances that have to take place simultaneously in order to form an operational flagellum.

get the video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"

Unbiased good detailed video on how life operates, debatable questions... and a really good way to deny ignorance.

I wouldn't call anything from the DI an attempt to reduce ignorance.

The point here is that if someone says 'it was impossible for this to evolve', but we can show a possible way for it to evolve, then it's not impossible, no?

There many articles on this now. Some focus on why ID arguments are wrong (e.g., IC etc), and possible routes via simpler components (e.g., conclusion and figure 7)

[edit on 29-11-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I wouldn't call anything from the DI an attempt to reduce ignorance.

The point here is that if someone says 'it was impossible for this to evolve', but we can show a possible way for it to evolve, then it's not impossible, no?

There many articles on this now. Some focus on why ID arguments are wrong (e.g., IC etc), and possible routes via simpler components (e.g., conclusion and figure 7)

[edit on 29-11-2007 by melatonin]

Possible ways is the key words. It's not proven, and it's not too realistic.

For example I heard an analogy if you had an infinite number of monkeys typing one day one of them would create a complete copy of Romeo and Juliet. Well that's not realistic, you can never get an infinite number of monkeys typing on a typewriter...it's not going to happen. So just because someone can imagine a why doesn't mean it's the right why. Logic should tell you it just not likely for these type of evolutionary steps.

Look at the eye for example and how it was suppose to have evolve from a single light sensitive cell. Well, how did all the parts of an eye come together. How did that single cell have the foresight to know it need to have a lens, and bloods cell that block UV light? Also if the eye is evolving why is the more people wearing glasses or contacts today.

Or here's another way to look it, suppose we are evolving into a human with wings instead of arms. 1/2 between now and days we have wings we should have something that looks 1/2 wing and 1/2 arms. Well, the wings would not be functional yet, and arms would less functional because they're in a in between step. So, an animal that or person that did not evolve the 1/2 wing and 1/2 arm, but still had the whole arm would the stronger. Evolution says the strong survive.

We're simply not evolving in fact I have reading lately there seems to allot of doctors/scientist asking if we are devolving...
Look at these one...
www.helium.com...

I think he's implying we need to get rid of stupid people so the smart one can go on. Evolution is crazy.

scientists say its impossible for it to evolve on its own

OK, that's the section I was interested in. So, I'll state it just one more time...

If we can show a possible pathway for it to evolve, then it's not impossible, no?

And, so, why isn't it realistic? Because you say so? Your incredulity precludes such an event?

[edit on 29-11-2007 by melatonin]

Both creationism and evolution exist. Creationism, however, came before evolution. The first organisms didn't just appear here on Earth all of a sudden. Plus, if you think they came from a comet, could they survive in space? Also, God exists because he exists only to people who believe in him. Animals started to evolve from the first organisms and started the evolution trail.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by Dan5647]

Originally posted by Dan5647
Both creationism and evolution exist. Creationism, however, came before evolution.

WRONG! the theory of evolution directly contradicts the hypothesis of creationism.

The first organisms didn't just appear here on Earth all of a sudden.

proof?

Plus, if you think they came from a comet, could they survive in space?

...i don't see anyone advocating the life came from a comet
life probably came from the primordial soup

Also, God exists because he exists only to people who believe in him.

...that's a massive logical fallacy right there.
by your logic the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny, all deities that are current believed in and every deluded fantasy of psychopaths exist

...i don't see anyone advocating the life came from a comet
life probably came from the primordial soup

yeah and that soup came from what? raining on the rocks for millions of years?

spontaneous generation isnt scientific, its not even a theory, its an assumption based on hope.

by your logic the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny, all deities that are current believed in and every deluded fantasy of psychopaths exist

yeah but everyone knows that the tooth fairy and all them other deities dont exist. its a fact, and yes they were made up.

you may ask why God is different...
just hold your hand out in front of you and tell me how is it that you (not someone else) if looking through your own eyes at your hand... tell me how you exist, tell me how you are really here....
now try to imagine what it would be like to not exist.... if it were just everyone else and not you... that would that be like?

[edit on 30-11-2007 by Methuselah]

Originally posted by Methuselah
yeah and that soup came from what? raining on the rocks for millions of years?

reducto ad absurdium.

spontaneous generation isnt scientific, its not even a theory, its an assumption based on hope.

chemical abiogenesis is scientific, it's currently being tested. it is, however, a relatively new theory and needs to be given time

yeah but everyone knows that the tooth fairy and all them other deities dont exist. its a fact, and yes they were made up.

oo... i feel hypocrisy coming on.

you may ask why God is different...
just hold your hand out in front of you and tell me how is it that you (not someone else) if looking through your own eyes at your hand... tell me how you exist, tell me how you are really here....
now try to imagine what it would be like to not exist.... if it were just everyone else and not you... that would that be like?

this doesn't explain why YOUR god exists and let's say... odin... doesn't. or why aten didn't do it
or the flying spaghetti monster

i exist because a lot of stuff happened and eventually beings that developed consciousness emerged on this tiny speck of dust that's lowlier than a single atom on this planet is relative to the span of the universe.

chemical abiogenesis is scientific, it's currently being tested. it is, however, a relatively new theory and needs to be given time

this theory/hope is well over a century old. its not new... scientists have been trying to create life in the lab for a long time... A LONG TIME... and its never going to happen... yeah there is a theory on how life could have evolved, but if you cant even do it with technology, how do you expect for me to believe that it can happen without it.

this doesn't explain why YOUR god exists

of course it doesnt, but it does explain that you were created and not evolved. your soul does not exist in the theory of evolution. that is something beyond this realm.

Originally posted by Methuselah
this theory/hope is well over a century old. its not new... scientists have been trying to create life in the lab for a long time... A LONG TIME... and its never going to happen... yeah there is a theory on how life could have evolved, but if you cant even do it with technology, how do you expect for me to believe that it can happen without it.

exactly, it's a new theory. 100 years old is fairly young science. and we haven't exactly had the proper instruments to figure it out for that whole 100 years.

we will eventually figure out the theory, i can assure you that. whether or not "figuring it out" means falsifying it, i do not know.

of course it doesnt, but it does explain that you were created and not evolved. your soul does not exist in the theory of evolution. that is something beyond this realm.

...no soul
sorry, looking in the wrong place... actually, anywhere would be looking in the wrong place

show me the evidence for a soul

reply to post by ZGhorus
That is not what the Bible says. Adam and Eve had son's and daughters (Gen.5:4) There are not tow accounts of creation. The first is a brief statement, the other is a more detailed description. Yes, brother's had to marry their sister to populate the world. That is not good, but God did not create the mess, man did this all by himself. Evolution is a stupid idea, and that is all it is, an idea. Everything came from nothing, "The big bang" Life came from non-life. There was no space, no matter, and no time. There was nothing that existed at all and in a big bang of nothing time, space and matter was created including life. One can not prove God in a test tube, but that does not mean that God can not be proved. God said he would prove himself. The Bible says, "If you hear his voice harden not your hearts (Hebrews 3:15) God said he would speak to a person, God has a voice. If God will not do what he said he would do, don't believe him. How could you trust a god that would lie. Jesus said that he will "stand at the door and knock: if any man will (hear my voice) I will come in to him" (Rev.3:20) You can hear a voice and you can hear a knock. Put him to the test, if you can't hear his voice and you can't hear his knocking, don't believe him. The day God called Moses he did not tell him to go to Egypt without giving him proof that he was God. Jesus said "seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be open, ask and it shall be given." Take him at his word and ask, seek, and knock and see what happens. You don't need a test tube if you really meet God personally. There is one condition, you must believe before you can receive. Paul said it like this, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:8-15) If you seek the Lord and he will not reveal himself to you in a way you can understand, don't believe him. Why is it so important to believe God before he will manifest himself to you? Look at it this way, what can you do for God that he can't do for himself and do it better? What can you give to God, he already has everything. You have nothing of value to offer. You can't do anything to earn salvation, nor do you have anything of value to buy salvation, God made it simple, he will except your faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ his son. God has great love for you, Jesus has the payment for your salvation, and all that is required of you is faith. You have no power at all to do anything on your behalf except to believe God and offer your self to him. According to the God which cannot lie he said your faith will be counted to you for righteousness (Romans 4:1-3) God can not depend on man to keep a covenant with him if there was a condition that required man to do a work of some kind other than to believe him. Adam only had to keep one commandment and he could not keep it, now look at the shape that the world is in today. God can't count on man to keep a covenant in order to be saved, so God said he would keep the covenant if we would just believe that what he promised in that covenant we can have just for the asking. Our faith in God will be enough to please God and give fallen man salvation (Hebrews 11:1-6) Here is the truth. If you honestly seek God and believe that Jesus died and paid your sin debt. Believe that God raised him from the dead the third day. If you seek him with your whole heart, God will speak to you in a way that you will know that he is real. If God will not do this, don't believe him, but I will assure you that you will know that God has personally visited with you. He said he would and he can not lie. The Bible says, "it was impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18).

To me creationism would only make sense if we are living in a computer simulation. As far as science is concerned, we are led to believe that our reality started with the big bang, yet it's possible that the simulation was turned on only 6000 years ago, so in that respect maybe the bible is right. Everything that came before that date is simply a creation of the simulation itself. Makes you think!