Is the Creation vs Evolution/Darwinism DNA evidence/Fossil evidence and or how Life got here for exa

Is the Creation vs Evolution/Darwinism DNA evidence/Fossil evidence and or how Life got here for example up to People's/Human/Human's Interpretation of the evidence what I mean is both Creationists/Evolutionists/Darwinists both have the same evidence but different Interpretations of the same evidence or is this wrong ?

The Text below is from the Answers in Genesis Website.

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

reply to post by mikejohnson2006

The major difference between Creationist and (Most) Evolutionists is that one believes
everything comes from something(God) and one believes everything comes from nothing(impossible in science).

reply to post by mikejohnson2006

Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

No, you are incorrect. That is religion. Science starts with a hypothesis that can be proven true or false, and goes about figuring out which it is.

We do share all the same facts, but one side tests them using scientific methods, while the other denies their existence.

The major difference between Creationist and (Most) Evolutionists is that one believes everything comes from something(God) and one believes everything comes from nothing(impossible in science).

Care to name a single "evolutionist" that said that? I'll spare you the time, none. Evolutionists claim, with scientific data to back them up, that the life we see now all started from basically the same way a human starts, lower life forms going back to single cell organisms. Over time, excruciatingly long times, these organisms multiplied and became more complex as they adapted to their surroundings.

Evolution doesn't say we came from nothing, it says we all came from the same something.

What that something was and how it got started is still up for debate and in my opinion, even though I am not religious, basically proves the existence of some creator. Evolution isn't completely random, it's based on the specific circumstances for that particular life form.

But how it started. well, think about it, if you are the "creator" how else would you ensure a biologically diverse planet without evolution?

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

I should have been more clear in my statement. When I said evolutionist believe everything came from nothing, I was referring to creation of everything, not just humans. I said "most" because a lot of the scientific community doesn't believe in a "creator".

Speaking strictly from a scientific standpoint, this issue has been treated in numerous works. It has been shown repeatedly that creationist arguments regarding biology and evolution are simply theological arguments written in the guise of evolutionary science.

I am religious, and I don't mean to knock religion, but this issue has been settled in scientific texts for well over 100 years. Creationists just do not realize that all of their arguments have been addressed previously. The only way one can mix theology and evolutionary science is to say that God used evolution as a tool for creation. That does come with its own problems however, but it is still a more valid argument than creationism.

Don't shoot the messenger here btw, as I am just presenting fact. I have multiple scientific works, some even textbooks from the 70's and 80's, and they all present both sides of the debate, and they all come to the same conclusion.

Evolution is a theory, meaning it is accepted among the scientific community as being THE mechanism to explain how life changes and adapts over time. No scientist would ever, EVER even consider publishing a paper that was titled "New Evidence for Evolution." It simply has not been an issue for well over 100 years. Why are people working backwards? People accept what science has given in the form of technology in their everyday lives, but when something conflicts with their beliefs, instead of changing their beliefs to encompass the new evidence, they attack science.

Look at what state the nations that do not have a strong scientific community are in. The issue of evolution is simply not an issue anymore, yet people cannot seem to accept that fact.

reply to post by GmoS719

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of a strawman argument.

reply to post by mikejohnson2006

Except that evolution is more than just an "interpretation of facts" -- it's an observable fact in and of itself as well as being a scientific theory. And scientific theories diverge wildly from religious dogma in one key manner -- they are also predictive tools. The theory of evolution has made several predictions which were later confirmed, one example being the discovery of human chromosome 2 being a fusion between chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b. If you can show me where creationism predicted something like this and then had it confirmed after the fact, I'd love to see it. So far, all I've seen out of creationism 1.0 and creationism 2.0 (aka intelligent design) are post hoc rationalizations.

Originally posted by mikejohnson2006
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Creationists assume ahead of time, that there was a godly intervention and that we were made at least somewhat like our current forms. Then ignore all evidence to the contrary, because it must be wrong if the original assumption is right, and then mold every other evidence into something to support the claim.

Evolution, in general, was never an ahead of time assumption. It was a conclusion made by looking at all the facts without a previous assumption. Seeing where they lead themselves, instead of leading them to an already decided conclusion. After that, it was applied to other fields, and things start to make sense("Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution", or however the quote goes"). After being a well proven science, yes assumptions are made when seeing things, seeing them in light of evolution, but that's not disregarding facts or heavily twisting them.

Evolution is science, embracing all evidence and facts, taking the path with least assumptions, and letting it prove itself over time, and scientifically explaining how all the claims against it don't work. Advocated by scientists, and proven to scientists.

Creation is religion, taking the path of personal satisfaction. And then picking the facts that support it while ignoring others. Ignoring any dis-proven claims. Advocated by religious leaders, and 'proven' only to the common man who's not versed in science, and completely unable to prove itself by scientific standards.

~
Really, the difference is putting the evidence first, and coming to a conclusion. Or thinking something else(Such as an old gory and self contradictory book, or subjective feelings you've been raised since birth to have a specific way) is more capable of determining fact. If you assume fact before evidence, anything pre-assumed can be made to seem right with certain facts or another. So the real question should boil down to what you believe is the best route to determining what's truely real.

Kind of like if you hate someone(For example if you have a friend that hates them and that's all you ever know about them), so you never notice when they do nice things, but fixate on any time they do something you don't like. You may justify your hate looking at it that way. But also, if you don't look at them with an already decided bias, you might see they are really nice, and the objectionable stuff they do isn't that bad. Not assuming ahead of time makes a massive difference.

P.S.
Answers in Genesis is horribly biased. Even amongst creationist websites(though there are much worse), you really have to take any claim it makes with a grain of salt until you research it elsewhere, because they don't care much if their claims are false. Don't rely on them much, and if you have to use them, Google the claims that they make and see if they're true.

~
Edit: Also want a reply to something.

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by mikejohnson2006

 

The major difference between Creationist and (Most) Evolutionists is that one believes
everything comes from something(God) and one believes everything comes from nothing(impossible in science).

Theism and Atheism is a different argument than creationism and evolution. However.

Atheists believe either that the universe always existed, or came into existence from nothing through some process(which quantum physics indicates is possible).

Theists believe it's impossible for something to always of existed, and impossible for something to come into existence without a creator. Therefor, they believe the universe was created by a god who either always existed(as they said is impossible), or came into existence on it's own without anything preceding to create it(also said to be impossible). Basically, using god as a middle man between the question(about origins) and the answer. God doesn't answer the question, it's just that the burden of it get's shifted from the universe to him, and somehow there's no need to answer it then.

Origins-X-Existence Possibly, the answer for X has already been found, branching the two.
Origins--X--God--Existence Quest stops at god and pretends to answer origins. Has no answer for X that wouldn't work in the previous model as well.

If you will do a little more reading you will find that Darwin's evolution was promoted to show that blacks were inferior to whites, so that the slave trade could exist in a country who's Constitution granted equal rights to all men. It was a racist propaganda from the very beginning. You can start by examining the complete name of his book, which I'm sure will surprise you.

Digging deeper you will find that his evidence was faked, and most has been discounted as such.

Digging even deeper you will find that that he himself admitted that his "work" was never intended to include humans.

TPTB took his work, and used it to profit from the slave trade. And no I am not Black, so that argument will not hold water. Don't you know as a member of ATS, that this is how they work? Everything always falls back on money, and the justification of it belonging to them. Deny Ignorance...

Think about this; if evolution were indeed factual, why is it called a theory?

reply to post by visualmiscreant

If you will do a little more reading you will find that Darwin's evolution was promoted to show that blacks were inferior to whites, so that the slave trade could exist in a country who's Constitution granted equal rights to all men. It was a racist propaganda from the very beginning. You can start by examining the complete name of his book, which I'm sure will surprise you.

If you do a little more reading where, exactly? Because not only is Darwin's writing not racist, he explicitly attacks the racist viewpoint held by most of his peers. One of the key debates in this area of science in Darwin's time was whether or not the different human races were different species or not. Darwin opposed the racist doctrine of polygenism and believed that all human beings are the same species. He questioned whether race was really even a useful classification. Keep in mind that he was in the minority in these beliefs during his time. So if you're looking to accuse someone of being a racist, maybe you shouldn't point to the guy that believed that race in terms of differentiating humans from one another was even a valid concept. Maybe you should point to other anthropologists and biologists of mid to late 1800's who disagreed with Darwin.

He wrote several books. To which are you referring? Is it On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life? If so, you're claims of it being a racist work only reveals that you haven't actually read it. If you had, you'd understand that he uses the word "races" to denote "varieties" and not the more modern connotation involving what we would today consider to be different races of human. If you had actually read it, you'd be aware that he refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants". His work where he actually discusses what we now refer to as race, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, makes it pretty clear that he rejected the notion that there's any difference between humans of different "races" other than superficial ones.

TPTB took his work, and used it to profit from the slave trade. And no I am not Black, so that argument will not hold water. Don't you know as a member of ATS, that this is how they work? Everything always falls back on money, and the justification of it belonging to them. Deny Ignorance...

Yes, deny ignorance... read Darwin's work for yourself and not just ridiculous claims that he was a racist by people who can't accept evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Originally posted by visualmiscreant
Think about this; if evolution were indeed factual, why is it called a theory?

edit on 10/19/2011 by visualmiscreant because: (no reason given)

*Sigh*

Germ Theory
Theory of Gravity
Heliocentric Theory

Theory means something completely different in science. A widely accepted explanation that's in tune with all the evidence. Law is a principle that always happens. Theories don't become laws when proven, they are different categories. Theory is, however, the highest standing any explanation can get. It's called a theory because all we know leads to it being factual. Not the other way around.

Rest of your post is bogus conspiracy theory(common use of the word theory, much less weight than a scientific theory, practically no weight), and while this is a conspiracy site, I'm not buying it.

reply to post by iterationzero

Never claimed Darwin was a racist. I said his work was used to promote racism, and I will post the details when I have the time; perhaps another thread. Thanks for your concern.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Even so, when a theory is based on faulty evidence, how can it be considered as fact?

I will have to find my stuff of course, and this will take a little time. I will present it in it's own thread in the next day or so. Until then, if you would like to prove evolution, be my guest...

reply to post by visualmiscreant

And this insidious plan by TPTB is so nefarious that it can only be defeated by reading the works of Charles Darwin, which are in the public domain and freely available to anyone who wants to read them? Amazing.

Originally posted by visualmiscreant
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

Even so, when a theory is based on faulty evidence, how can it be considered as fact?

I will have to find my stuff of course, and this will take a little time. I will present it in it's own thread in the next day or so. Until then, if you would like to prove evolution, be my guest...

Evolution has been probably the most scrutinized theory around, and it has withheld any challenge. If all the overwhelming evidence could be proven false, it would be done. And the scientist who did it would end up rich and famous(unless he was using falsifiable deceit, then it'd cost his job).

Even if all of the evidence Darwin had access to was dismissed, there'd still be enough in recent discovery to warrant the theory. To dismiss of it as false, you'd need some really hardcore evidence, and see what the scientific community has to say about it.

I suppose when you gather your point and make your own topic, it'll be interesting to see.

Here we go again. I expect all the usual answers from both sides of the arguement, The facts or lack of them will not be determined true or false on ATS, there's too much belief standing in the way. Got to love you for trying though

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Agreed, the thread is in the making. Thank you for your debate, and goodnight.

In case anybody is seriously tripping on this, let me at least give you the baby steps so you can see where Creationists are coming from. I understand this will not be popular, but that's the nature of it....

Darwin's Landmark Book Published in November 1859
Darwin finished a manuscript, and his book, titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races In the Struggle for Life, was published in London on November 24, 1859. (Over time, the book became known by the shorter title On the Origin of Species.)

Source

Notice the part where it says "or", which implies one or the other:

or the Preservation of Favoured Races

The dropping of this second part of the title should raise a flag.

Originally posted by visualmiscreant
Source

Notice the part where it says "or", which implies one or the other:

or the Preservation of Favoured Races

The dropping of this second part of the title should raise a flag.

You do realize that the word "race" is not talking about just races of humans, right? I really hope that's a joke because that's one of the worst arguments I've seen to date, and I've seen a lot. It's simply about adapting to environments and you see it in humans as well. Humans that lived in Africa the longest have darker skin and better resistance to skin cancer. That's a simple fact, there is no "favored race". Terrible terrible attempt to discredit science.

I don't understand why people try to deny proven facts and call them theology. That argument became invalid like 50 years ago. Denying evolution is like denying the earth is round or that it revolves around the sun.

Facts and experiments aren't open to interpretation. Theology and religion is. If you interpret some random scriptures from thousands of years ago as literal truth, then that's where the problem is and its the only reason it doesn't make god seem that much greater to set up and amazing system such as evolution to produce life on the planet. To me, there's no reason they can't coexist. Why is it you don't believe the earth is the center of the universe as stated in your infallible holy book?

reply to post by Barcs

It doesn't matter; I was being judgemental, and I withdraw my statements. I'm big enough to do that. I'm also old enough to know that I can't change how someone else believes no more than they can change how I believe. Only God can do that. Thanks for helping me see this; both of you...