DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

Originally posted by AutomatonCatchup
No matter how much science discovers there always remains more to discover. It is finite.

At the moment the singularity is the proposed time 0 (perhaps in the future that will change and we go even earlier) according to science from what I know. But how did it get there and what caused it to 'expand'. There will always be the argument of what happened before that. That is where faith comes into it. No matter how much science uncovers there will always be boundaries around it.

Of course the beginning of the Universe has nothing to do with the fact of evolution but whatever..

Boncho, well met. I don't particpate on these threads much nowadays. The dumbo level is too high to make it worth the effort for me any longer. As we see here...

reply to post by NowanKenubi

You mean no monkeys live close to humans? It never happened?

It happened. It happens. There are monkeys at the bottom of my garden. Leaf-eating langurs, to be precise.

Evolution is not that hard to learn about. Why not give it a try before you try debunking it?

Sorry man, I don't think you are going to win with a creationist argument that says Earth is less than 30,000 years old. That's an extremist religious argument - the mainstream religious opinion is that Genesis is a metaphorical account of a long-term process.

You could have a chance of winning your argument if you were to combine creationism with evolution.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Have you Ever heard of the Petrified Forest . .. . ?

Or . . .. . .

Fossils .. .. . ?

Fossil, dinosaur bones, those things were all put on Earth by Satan to make us confused. Dinn u know?

educate yourself www.youtube.com...

Instead you could educate yourself without listening to the world of charlatans.

One of the most comprehensive online archives of peer-reviewed journal articles, JSTOR, does not show a single peer-reviewed article—scientific or otherwise—published in Veith’s name. But Veith’s primary mode of communication is not the printed but rather the spoken word. For anyone desiring to enter the dark fantasy world of Walter Veith—a universe that seamlessly blends nutritional advice and traditional Adventist apocalyptic beliefs with Veith’s own idiosyncratic, surreal, and sinister conspiracy theories—the portal is any computer with an internet connection.

Veith is a South African Seventh-day Adventist who was born in 1949 and was at one time chair of zoology at the University of the Western Cape.


If nothing else, he knows how to play the chords of apocalyptic menace with a campy but bravura showmanship. And he seems to know exactly what he is doing. Veith repeatedly states in his performances that he is not telling his listeners what to believe but is simply presenting them with the “facts” so that they can make informed judgments for themselves. But these claims are also simply part of the show. Veith is by every indication a religious confidence man who has carved out his own niche market by convincing sadly credulous listeners to suspend their critical judgment just long enough to become convinced that what he is saying is not only entirely plausible but is in fact the very height of reason. .

spectrummagazine.org...

Someone who claims he speaks about facts but he has none to give except the ones he proclaims.

This post is just an attack on Veith but has no legitimate points against him. Your saying he claims to speak about facts but has none except what he proclaims.. Really? have you watched anything by him. He puts sources all throughout his lectures and quotes many well known scientists, and theologians. I noticed you only took a little chunk from that whole article. Is it because they start trying to discredit him by saying he believes in conspiracies against mainstream media, government and religion? Clearly this is a mainstream attack on a man who is trying to fight the brainwash of the mainstream. If you are still asleep yourself to the evils running this world I understand why veiths lectures seem dark and mysterious to you. I suggest you wake up.
I'm not saying I agree with every word this man says but he is on the ball for most things he speaks on. If you havnt actually watched his lectures and researched into the powers that be, you have no right commenting on this issue. Your just a sheep.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
What's to debate?
We are experiencing both creation and evolution.

can you post a link of evolution being seen today? I havnt come across any but if you have please share

You see it when a bacteria evolves and becomes airborne. That's a very simple example, but we also have other ones:

In the last ten years scientists have come to realize that a parasite was killing all of the male members of hypolimnas bolina on the Samoan islands of Upolu and Savaii. The pest would infect the females and then kill the males before they were hatched. The problem was so severe that in 2001 males inhabited only 1% of the population and the species was on the verge of extinction in this area of the world.

In the span of one year and 10 generations in the hypolimnas bolina family, the male butterfly’s evolved and obtained a suppressor gene that prevented the killer bacteria from spreading. In modern days the male population has increased to 40% in the colonies on these islands. Evolution is often much more evident in insects, as a family generation and lifespan is much shorter then with primates.



Read more: www.toptenz.net...

If you want to argue, oh well adaptation is not evolution... Keep in mind the genetic code for these creatures, are changing. Over time, more than one change, or a major change by natural selection (specific individuals dyring because they don't have a gene expression) after many generations, the original data, becomes completely different. If .07% of genes are modified, and another .07% is lost through natural selection, a thousand generations and the genetic code starts varying greatly. 10,000 generations.... and....

Keep in mind, evolution is only seen in very simple organisms, for the most part. Where their life spans are in hours or minutes.

Major changes in primates happened over thousands and thousands of years. I don't see why this is hard to grasp though. If we see small changes in one lifetime, what do you expect in 50-80,000? Consider, there were generations where the expectancy age was very short.

How is it that evolutionists claim evolution happened in a vertical fashion but all you can show me is bacteria becoming airborne thus proving evolution? Why cant you show me one example on us humans or an animal around us evolving? When mutations happen thats how evolutionists say we evolve.. again show me some examples we see today of a beneficial mutation.
A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene. You wont find an example that these damages to a DNA gene is what made us into the superior beings we are today, it just doesnt happen.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

 

Of all of the conversations that never happened on Facebook, this one didn't happen the most.

A few points you should clean up next time you try to pass this off as a conversation that really happened:

1. There's a difference between radiometric dating and radiocarbon dating. No scientist, or even moderately educated layman, would make the mistake of claiming that radiocarbon dating can be used to date anything that's millions of years old. Radiocarbon dating relies on calibration curves garnered from samples which can be independently dated using other methods for precisely the reasons you state.

2. There's no need to have "faith" that scientists are correct. It's why they publish the results of their experiments, including the methodology by which they arrived at their results. That way, anyone with the desire to repeat those experiments can. If they get the same results, great! If they don't get the same results, they can then discuss why they may not have, more people can run the same experiment, etc. Science is self-correcting and not dogmatic.

3. You seem to be confused about the difference between the colloquial definition of a theory and the scientific definition of a theory. You would do well to acquaint yourself with the difference between the two. You also seem to be confused about an observable phenomenon (gravity, evolution, etc.) and the theory used to explain that phenomenon (the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, etc.). Two different things.

4. Many things have been called "supernatural" and attributed to a deity or deities. Lightning, volcanic eruptions, the Sun, the Moon, disease, fire... almost any phenomenon you care to name. Science understands them now. You're basically arguing that the origin of the Universe will always remain a mystery. Given the track record of science explaining the "supernatural" so far, you're betting on the wrong horse. If that's your argument for God, then (to paraphrase Tyson) God is just an ever-shrinking ball of scientific ignorance.

5. It's always good form, particularly in a written debate, to cite your sources and not just copy-paste other people's work. Further, if you're going to argue a point based on "well, I've heard evolutionists say that...", the provide a source. Who said it? When did they say it? What was the context? Similarly, when you're citing "facts" that appear to debunk evolution, provide a source for those facts. Even better, make sure that the facts you're presenting really support the conclusion that you think they do.

Other than that... it's quite an interesting combination of arguments from ignorance (aka God of the Gaps), arguments from incredulity, and strawman arguments you've constructed for yourself. Clean it up a bit and I bet you could fool AiG, the ICR, WND, or maybe even Conservapedia to post it as if it really occurred.

So what your saying is you dont need faith in scientists because they produce paper with evidence.. Then you say if you dont believe it try the experiment and if it works then its correct. I would agree with you if the methods they used werent flawed. You see your assuming the system they use to date things hundreds of millions of years is accurate, which its not. So if you recreate the experiment with a flawed system sure you may come to the same number but that doesnt prove the number is right.

Your point number 4 makes no sense. You saying because people believed things to be supernatural years ago and now realize they arent means nothing supernatural exists. The bible says NOT to attribute these things to deities because god is the only deity, so there goes that point. The phenomena we experience today that could be mistaken without science as a deity is not the point that matters. Its the deity that created these phenomena to begin with that matters(the gap).

Addressing your point 5. I understand theres no sources ect as this was just a quick facebook argument. By no means am i saying all my points are valid. I posted this here to get feedback and start a discussion.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets


Today's religion will be tomorrow's myth, just like all the "gods" who were given credit to all the now explainable things. You can play God in the gaps all day long, but as history has shown, once that gap gets filled with fact, your God will disappear.

There are things we know as scientific fact, and as each day goes by there is a little bit more learned. This does not rely on faith, but instead facts and data. Instead of disregarding fact that doesn't fit in to your belief system, maybe you should try disregarding portions of your belief system to fit the facts?

DC

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

 

Today's religion will be tomorrow's myth, just like all the "gods" who were given credit to all the now explainable things. You can play God in the gaps all day long, but as history has shown, once that gap gets filled with fact, your God will disappear.

There are things we know as scientific fact, and as each day goes by there is a little bit more learned. This does not rely on faith, but instead facts and data. Instead of disregarding fact that doesn't fit in to your belief system, maybe you should try disregarding portions of your belief system to fit the facts?

DC

look what you just said..
"once that gap gets filled with fact, your God will disappear."
so as of right now you don't have the facts

"There are things we know as scientific fact, and as each day goes by there is a little bit more learned. This does not rely on faith, but instead facts and data."
as weve establish above as well as in the original post, YOU DON'T HAVE THE DATA. So your "belief" system is by faith, because you believe one day the scientists will be able to fill in the gaps.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

Because it does not matter at all.
If you are a creationist and you die and there is nothing - no heaven, no hell, no godlike creature or devil, you'd be disappointed.
On the other hand, I won't be disappointed as I already believe that there is nothing after death.
And if I do see heaven or hell, god or satan , well I will at least get a pleasant surprise.
And as you will no doubt tell me that I will go to hell, well in my case that would be heaven.
Hell would be being surrounded by "holier than thou" angels playing harps, no booze, no parties, no sexy women to party with etc.

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

 

Because it does not matter at all.
If you are a creationist and you die and there is nothing - no heaven, no hell, no godlike creature or devil, you'd be disappointed.
On the other hand, I won't be disappointed as I already believe that there is nothing after death.
And if I do see heaven or hell, god or satan , well I will at least get a pleasant surprise.
And as you will no doubt tell me that I will go to hell, well in my case that would be heaven.
Hell would be being surrounded by "holier than thou" angels playing harps, no booze, no parties, no sexy women to party with etc.

If I die and theres nothing it wont matter because theres nothing..

from original post
"Pascal made this wager to his non believing friends, saying what is your measure of happiness? He said "I'm happy! If i die i die" but he said "If you boys are wrong, youve got a king size headache coming for rejecting the one who created you."

If the idea of a god is still a probability like weve established(the gap) why would you choose the side that says nothing happens. Statistically people that believe in a God live longer. Because they have hope. Even if it turns out to just be your mind that allows this to happen so what. Your on the right side if everyone else is wrong(which looking into it leads me to believe they are) "

Seems like you don't understand hell and heaven. Hell isn't made yet, no Satan isn't down there with his pitch fork and slutty women. Satan doesnt want to go to hell more than the next guy. But he will be cast there in the end. You seem to be under the great deception of the devil. Your logic is backwards.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

So what your saying is you dont need faith in scientists because they produce paper with evidence.. Then you say if you dont believe it try the experiment and if it works then its correct. I would agree with you if the methods they used werent flawed. You see your assuming the system they use to date things hundreds of millions of years is accurate, which its not. So if you recreate the experiment with a flawed system sure you may come to the same number but that doesnt prove the number is right.

But according to you, the radiometric dating argument is invalid because it's inconsistent. So which is it -- consistently flawed (e.g. precise but not accurate) or is it inconsistently flawed (e.g. neither precise nor accurate)? You also ignore the fact, and I say fact because it's objectively verifiable and reproducible, that different radiometric methods agree to within minuscule degrees of error.

Your point number 4 makes no sense. You saying because people believed things to be supernatural years ago and now realize they arent means nothing supernatural exists. The bible says NOT to attribute these things to deities because god is the only deity, so there goes that point. The phenomena we experience today that could be mistaken without science as a deity is not the point that matters. Its the deity that created these phenomena to begin with that matters(the gap).

The point only makes no sense to someone who claims the Bible is a good reference text for information pertaining to naturalistic phenomenon. Can you explain why you think the Bible is a valid source of information of that kind?

Addressing your point 5. I understand theres no sources ect as this was just a quick facebook argument. By no means am i saying all my points are valid. I posted this here to get feedback and start a discussion.

(Emphasis mine.) Then we are in agreement about something, although I would take it a step further.

How is it that evolutionists claim evolution happened in a vertical fashion but all you can show me is bacteria becoming airborne thus proving evolution? Why cant you show me one example on us humans or an animal around us evolving? When mutations happen thats how evolutionists say we evolve.. again show me some examples we see today of a beneficial mutation.

Darwinian selection continues to influence human evolution

New evidence proves humans are continuing to evolve and that significant natural and sexual selection is still taking place in our species in the modern world. Despite advancements in medicine and technology, as well as an increased prevalence of monogamy, research reveals humans are continuing to evolve just like other species. Scientists in an international collaboration, which includes the University of Sheffield, analysed church records of about 6,000 Finnish people born between 1760-1849 to determine whether the demographic, cultural and technological changes of the agricultural revolution affected natural and sexual selection in our species. Project leader Dr Virpi Lummaa, of the University's Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, said: "We have shown advances have not challenged the fact that our species is still evolving, just like all the other species 'in the wild'. It is a common misunderstanding that evolution took place a long time ago, and that to understand ourselves we must look back to the hunter-gatherer days of humans."

Link

Observed Speciation Events

A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998). Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991). A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006). Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

Link
Link

reply to post by flyingfish


The point is not whether darwinistic mechanisms are influencing us. That is inevitable. The point is whether darwinistic mechanisms is enough to create beings of trillions of cells, starting from a single one.

reply to post by vasaga


Ahh yes that old cherry...Arguments from incredulity, Irreducible complexity and complex specified information.
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Do you not have anything better to do than spread disinformation on a conspiracy site?

Please read this link and come back when you know how to debate without using logical fallacy's.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Really? have you watched anything by him. He puts sources all throughout his lectures and quotes many well known scientists, and theologians. I noticed you only took a little chunk from that whole article

Just direct me to his peer reviewed work and be done with it then? No need to argue your point, just provide evidence.

I suggest you wake up.
I'm not saying I agree with every word this man says but he is on the ball for most things he speaks on. If you havnt actually watched his lectures and researched into the powers that be, you have no right commenting on this issue. Your just a sheep.

Says someone quoting someone who fails to provide facts?


There is a difference from paraphrasing something in a speech, and producing a paper with citations that a reader or observer can go back, and retrace the steps to come to the same conclusion as the presenter. I suggest you learn the difference. You know, so as not to be a "sheep" as you say.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

Why cant you show me one example on us humans or an animal around us evolving? When mutations happen thats how evolutionists say we evolve.. again show me some examples we see today of a beneficial mutation.

There is a button on the left of everyones moniker on ATS, check mine, click on "posts in thread", reread my posts. Since you missed some.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

I would agree with you if the methods they used werent flawed. You see your assuming the system they use to date things hundreds of millions of years is accurate, which its not. So if you recreate the experiment with a flawed system sure you may come to the same number but that doesnt prove the number is right.

I missed the part where you provided experimental data showing it was wrong?

Addressing your point 5. I understand theres no sources ect as this was just a quick facebook argument. By no means am i saying all my points are valid. I posted this here to get feedback and start a discussion.

That doesn't change the fact that you didn't source your argument. Or continued it without sourcing. Or fail to source afterward. It shows you are not inclined to have a serious debate.

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

"There are things we know as scientific fact, and as each day goes by there is a little bit more learned. This does not rely on faith, but instead facts and data."
as weve establish above as well as in the original post, YOU DON'T HAVE THE DATA. So your "belief" system is by faith, because you believe one day the scientists will be able to fill in the gaps.

There is more than enough data to show the Bible, taken in a literal sense is complete and utter nonsense. I think the poster is pointing out that as more scientific data comes in, eventually it will be undeniable to most. As science has already enlightened a good portion of the world, simply since modern communications have been invented.

You must remember, that in the past religious leaders sheltered and/or hid things from people simply to keep them under their guidance/control.

This is evident even today with groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, et al.

The problem with this debate is that the two sides are basing their presentation on two different foundations. The scientific side is based on ideas and collected data. There will always be new data and new attempt to reinterpret the data. Therefore, the explanation of the of fact of Evolution will modify over time as we come to better understand the nature of the universe. Science is not a stagnate dogma. However, the basic idea has been proven time and time again.
Whereas the creationist viewpoint is not based on an idea, but rather a belief. Ideas can be changed as people think and learn new things; beliefs do not allow thought and examination. Therefore beliefs are hard to change.
However, let us look at the REAL problem that the creationist has with evolution - Human evolution.
Science tells us that there are natural laws which have always been followed. One of the results of these laws is that simple life has the possibility to naturally occur from the basic chemicals of the planet. This takes billions of years and these simple creatures will over time diversify, and become more complex, Life is very opportunistic and adaptive. If science stopped right there most creationist would see no problem with this. However, evolution also states that our ancestors are from the same planet and evolved. Here is where the human pride kicks in. The creationist belief set (Intelligent design) sic. is based on a very imperfect god. He set up these perfect natural laws that will do everything for him and then micromanages the mess so that he has to keep track of every fly. But why are they so willing to consider god to be the servant of every creature? (Christ said that he takes care of the needs for the birds and the flowers) The line that says that human were made in the image of god. This line allows the creationist to profess that he is related to a god and not to bacteria. So, we see seemingly intelligent people who profess that they cannot understand how the natural laws and processes could work, but they will accept that they were made out of dirt by an invisible hand. It only show that there is nothing more infinite than human pride.

Well the OP pretty much got owned by the "evolutionists", even though they weren't really doing a good job. Can't believe people still use that word. It gets humorous when your best argument evolves into, "just because you have your charts and evidence, doesn't mean you are right. science can change!!!" (paraphrasing) Just stop. Unless you have an alternative theory with evidence behind it, you have nothing, especially if you are in a real debate on the validity of evolution. The truth is there is no debate, only stubborn people. Scientists aren't debating evolution, they are actively experimenting and learning more of the details that are fuzzy. Please leave the science to the scientists and the philosophy to the philosophers. You can't debate evolution when you know nothing about it.

I'll point out some fun quotes.

That's why 10 years ago the world was millions almost billions of years younger

10 years ago? Really? You are looking back into the 1800s with those estimates. Darwin estimated at least 3.4 billion based on the time it takes evolution to work and that was late 1800s. We've that the 4.5 billion figure since the 50s. Yeah, it kinda helps your credible when you know what you are talking about..

They teach 4.6 billion year old earth as a fact in schools. It's not a fact.. You'll see it change in a few years.

Based on your last estimate of 10 years, then the age of the earth should change in 5 years. By the way, they teach it as the best estimate of the earth's age not as absolute fact. I sense homeschooling.

You have no hard evidence for the Big Bang

Fail statement. We can measure background radiation and much more.

And then it just spins off into nothing. OP did not disproved evolution, he used red herrings to change the subject away from the opposing points, and unfortunately the 'evolutionists' didn't ignore it like they should have. They took the bait.