just let them believe in creationism

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by Lannock
I don't care that there's only 5% of proof for evolution.

First: Can you tell me where you got 5%?
Second: 5% is better than 0% (creationism)
Third: You fail to mention that whatever the percent is, it's constantly growing.

Nice try though, you may have convinced some of the weak minded.

You attack the 5% and conveniently ignore the rest. If you read all of it I'm sure you've figured out that it's only a made up figure. You can't give a % because you can't determine what 100% is. If you read all of it I'm sure you can also see that I do make allowance for it growing.

It all comes back to my "truth" post. Evolutionists have discovered there are 2 options for "how it all came about": Creationism and Evolution. Creationism cannot be proven so they remove it from the equition which leaves you with Evolution. Therefore they come up with "escape clauses" EXACTLY like Christians come up with escape clauses (FYI I'm not a Christian).

Ask the same question of a Christian and an Evolutionist and me:
How did it all come about:
C : God did it
E : We don't know yet but we are getting closer every day
ME: I don't know. I believe in some creation event(s) but we'll never find the answer.

Question for Christian: Bla bla bla?
C : God works in mysterious ways.

Question for Evolutionist: Transition forms? Where are they?
E : You see, making a fossil is a complex process. The animal has to die in the exact right spot and not get eaten and then someone must find the fossil. I'm sure there are transitional forms out there, we just haven't found them yet.



There you go. Escape clauses. Answers for everything. Christians have basically just the one escape clause (mysterious ways). Evolutionists have a bunch of them. Evolutionists believe beyond a shadow of a doubt they are correct and all questions will one day be answered by science.

I think you have trouble discerning between an excuse and a reason, and that the poster was asking why you chose the arbitrary value of 5%, as you clearly haven't calculated that from anything.

Resentments are the cause of all spiritual illnesses.

reply to post by fmcanarney


According to you. We are trying to have a rational debate - please check your spirituality at the door, as that has no part to play.

Originally posted by Lannock
There you go. Escape clauses. Answers for everything. Christians have basically just the one escape clause (mysterious ways). Evolutionists have a bunch of them.

If you have a more likely scenario, then bring it to the table. If you simply believe that someone/something must have created us then you have 0% evidence. Yet you say that evolution has 5% evidence and growing. It's clear which option is more likely.

The reason why I believe in evolution is because it makes more sense that we would grow to fit the universe than to say that the universe was made around us. However, the ego of humans would like to believe that the universe was created for us.

Also, these 'escape clauses' as you describe them are actual logical conclusions. Something that creationists will never have.

Originally posted by Lannock
Evolutionists believe beyond a shadow of a doubt they are correct and all questions will one day be answered by science.

I don't believe it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I simply know that it's the most likely scenario given what we know.

Originally posted by redmage
Personally, I'm all for the idea of teaching about creationism (ID) in public schools. While they're at it, they should expose students to all sorts of major religions in order to give them a better understanding of how various people view the world. A Religions of the World course could do a lot of good for our kids.

That said, ID has no place in a science classroom.

[edit on 8/15/08 by redmage]

I agree that religion should be taught in school as a Religion class(not science). Everyone should have a better understanding of ALL religions and be open to learning and being tolerant of other beliefs. With that said schools should also be teaching philosophy along with a logic/critical thinking class. School has been 'standardized' to the point that no one is learning anything, they are only asked to memorize and repeat. No analysis or critical thinking involved. Cookie cutter students. The test scores might look better but that doesnt mean that anyone is smarter or better off.

Sadly these subjects create too much controversy by some standards and are deemed unacceptable to discuss. Christians would be upset that their child was being taught about Judism, Jews would be angered that their child was learning about Islam and they would all be upset that their children were learning about philosophy and questioning all of their beliefs. Even though all of these studies would help to make society better overall.

But aside from religion and philosophy, there should be logic/critical thinking courses taught all the way through K-12. Critical thinking is so important to making informed decisions in every area of our lives. All of society would be greatly benefited by teaching everyone to use logic and critical thinking skills in everyday life. Many parents are not capable of critical thinking and so their children are never taught these skills.

I think if creationism/ID is to be taught in schools, then it needs to be a part of religious studies (not science because it just isn't), which would need to be optional.

Trouble is that if a teen is doing religious studies, then they're already going to be religious. If they are already religious then why come to school to learn creation? They can do that at home reading the bible.

I don't think creation should be taught in school because it is just not necessary. It's got nothing to do with me thinking it's rubbish and knowing that it's unscientific, it just does not need to be taught in school.


Plus who says there are no transitional fossils?

Originally posted by Lannock
Ask the same question of a Christian and an Evolutionist and me:
How did it all come about:
C : God did it
E : We don't know yet but we are getting closer every day
ME: I don't know. I believe in some creation event(s) but we'll never find the answer.

Evolution is not the study of the origin of life. This is one of the biggest misconceptions and misinformation arguments used against evolution.

The study of the origin of life is called Abiogenesis

Evolution is the study of the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next.

We know this happens and the process of finding out how this happens is study of evolution and information that is found to be sound, under rigorous scientific testing, is added to the body of knowledge called the Theory of Evolution.

Ok ... so are we clear on what evolution is all about now?

Question for Evolutionist: Transition forms? Where are they?

Transitional fossils

Evolutionists believe beyond a shadow of a doubt they are correct and all questions will one day be answered by science.

Evolutionists believe the current theory is correct because of the evidence present.

However they do not believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right.

Science always leaves room for falsification. If evidence comes to light that changes the direction of the Theory of Evolution, even if it directly contradicts todays understanding then the understanding of evolutionists will change as well ... it will, however, still be called the Theory of Evolution. Science is always seeking the truth.

Religion, on the other hand, believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is correct and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that. Creationists believe they have found the truth.

That's why it's best to just let them believe in Creationism.

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide - used by JPhish as a signature and a point I should have jumped on long ago whilst in debates against him.

I don't think we should give up on the creationists. ATSfordummies made a thread a while back and tried to make a point that was problematic for evolutionists (he was a creationist). His point was shown to be based on a misconception and ignorance and he recanted and he realised that he did not have all the facts. He thanked everyone for their information and later complemented me for a thread I made (about the misconceptions).

Not all creationists are wilfully ignorant religious zealots, and will reason with people, so we should not give up on them...


...not that we will. I think people who come here and engage in arguments just do it cos they like to argue. I must admit I'm guilty of it.