Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What are the Convictions of a Cre. and a Eva.

OnlineMissionary197
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
When Creationists and Evolutionists go head to head on facts and interpretations, they both come up with a different story. Both share the exact same evidence. Non-of them have evidence that the other does not have. So with the same evidences, they both come up with different interpretations. No matter how many facts thrown at each other, both do not budge their ground. So really its up to conviction. So out of Curiosity on Both Creationists and Evolutionists, what makes you believe in Evolution, or Creation; and why.

P.S. Please do not make you reason, "Because its true" or "Because science says so" Give me an actual reason/s. Scientific, philosophical, Logical, Spiritual, Moral, etc...
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 9:56:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
Both share the exact same evidence.
Not on this planet.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
OnlineMissionary197
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 9:59:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:56:22 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
Both share the exact same evidence.
Not on this planet.

Whatever do you mean? Do tell about this material that completely tells that this view is 100% correct. What evidence do you think one side has but the other does not have?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:57:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:

When Creationists and Evolutionists go head to head on facts and interpretations, they both come up with a different story.

A creationist needs to establish a creator. Have you seen one around? No? In fact no-one has. There goes that 'theory'.

Both share the exact same evidence.

Nonsense. One started from observation of nature and derived a theory to explain the evidence. That theory has stood the test of a century and a half of intense scrutiny and is still the most successful scientific theory ever discovered. The other simply ignores or dismisses the evidence. There is no comparison.

Non-of them have evidence that the other does not have. So with the same evidences, they both come up with different interpretations.

Wrong. Creationism is not based on evidence but on received wisdom. The evidence in nature is totally at odds with a creation account and must constantly be rejected with absurd apologetics. Adam and Eve? Talking snakes? You must surely jest.

No matter how many facts thrown at each other, both do not budge their ground.

There are no facts from a creationist. Show us the creator. Then you can talk about creation.

So really its up to conviction.

No, it is up to logic and reason rather than blind faith. It is about accepting the evidence impartially without a predetermined goal in mind. You don't start with a position and then scramble around to find support for it, dismissing what is inconvenient at every turn. You don't change your story continually as science discovers that the world is nothing like the creation account of the original authors. Allegory anyone?

So out of Curiosity on Both Creationists and Evolutionists, what makes you believe in Evolution, or Creation; and why.

You aren't curious. You are simply looking for some angle to deride evolutionary theory by pretending that you have a competing theory (couching it in scientific terms such as 'evidence'). In reality you have nothing other than God-dun-it.

P.S. Please do not make you reason, "Because its true" or "Because science says so" Give me an actual reason/s. Scientific, philosophical, Logical, Spiritual, Moral, etc...

The ToE is the only one which can explain the history of the enormous diversity of life on this planet. It has multiple lines of evidence, has passed the test of time (well and truly), and is indispensable in our understanding of modern science in areas such as immunology, genetic medicine and pest control to name a few.

What is useful about creationism or ID? Nothing. Even if true, it would be a dead end since a supernatural explanation would be the end of observation and questioning. No research is possible and no predictions could be made. Humans would have to just give up and accept that logic and reason are useless in understanding reality.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:01:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:59:37 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:

What evidence do you think one side has but the other does not have?

You could start your education here (if you are really interested):

http://www.talkorigins.org...
OnlineMissionary197
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 7:41:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 12:57:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197

I think you are missing the point of the entire question. I'm glad that you are trying to point things out about how Creation is not credible, but You did not tell me about Evolution. The purpose is not to tell who is wrong, the point is tell to why you choose this view. What I am trying to do is get inside the heads the participants of both stances. From what you put up here, you are showing me how to point out the faults of others. To discredit something without giving yourself a foundation. You are quick to judge, and very excited to prove something wrong. so, apparently you are for Evolution; so,I wanted to hear your thoughts about your view on Evolution. Why do you believe Evolution? You only attempted to discredit Creationism.
OnlineMissionary197
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 8:09:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 12:57:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:

A creationist needs to establish a creator. Have you seen one around? No? In fact no-one has. There goes that 'theory'.

You are making on an observation on physical eyesight. No, I have not physically seen the Creator. But I have not seen air either, nor your Brain. Therefor, there is not air,, nor do we have a brain.

Nonsense. One started from observation of nature and derived a theory to explain the evidence. That theory has stood the test of a century and a half of intense scrutiny and is still the most successful scientific theory ever discovered. The other simply ignores or dismisses the evidence. There is no comparison.


What I am saying is that we use the same Fossils that we dig from the ground. We see the same layer patterns in the mountains and canyons. We have the same rocks we pick up from the ground, but we use different methods to interpret where, when, why, how and what.

Wrong. Creationism is not based on evidence but on received wisdom. The evidence in nature is totally at odds with a creation account and must constantly be rejected with absurd apologetics. Adam and Eve? Talking snakes? You must surely jest.


Wrong, Creationism is using the Bible, science, and History to explain how thing were made and how they came to be to today. Christianity is based on the knowledge of the Bible. Where wisdom comes in. Talking snakes? Bah! I too can jest! Surely you must not mean that I came from a monkey would ya?

There are no facts from a creationist. Show us the creator. Then you can talk about creation.

Once again you are basing yourself on the physical eyes. Therefore I still think you have no Brain.

No, it is up to logic and reason rather than blind faith. It is about accepting the evidence impartially without a predetermined goal in mind. You don't start with a position and then scramble around to find support for it, dismissing what is inconvenient at every turn. You don't change your story continually as science discovers that the world is nothing like the creation account of the original authors. Allegory anyone?

Creationism is to based on science and logic. Evolution does it too. The difference is that we start off with a different beginning. We start with a Creator, you start off with a Big Bang. Just pray you don't go out like one.

You aren't curious. You are simply looking for some angle to deride evolutionary theory by pretending that you have a competing theory (couching it in scientific terms such as 'evidence'). In reality you have nothing other than God-dun-it.

I AM CURIOUS!!!! I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR FOUNDATION!!!!!

The ToE is the only one which can explain the history of the enormous diversity of life on this planet. It has multiple lines of evidence, has passed the test of time (well and truly), and is indispensable in our understanding of modern science in areas such as immunology, genetic medicine and pest control to name a few.

What is useful about creationism or ID? Nothing. Even if true, it would be a dead end since a supernatural explanation would be the end of observation and questioning. No research is possible and no predictions could be made. Humans would have to just give up and accept that logic and reason are useless in understanding reality.

ToE (Theory of Evolution) I'm still waiting for the name to change to The Law of Evolution. Understanding of modern science in areas such as immunology, genetic medicine and pest control to name a few? Well, how about I bring some thins Creationism brought in. The Structure of the Atom, Quantum Electrodynamics, Modern Astronomy, the Modern Computer, the Electromagnetic Field, and several more.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
When Creationists and Evolutionists go head to head on facts and interpretations, they both come up with a different story. Both share the exact same evidence. Non-of them have evidence that the other does not have. So with the same evidences, they both come up with different interpretations. No matter how many facts thrown at each other, both do not budge their ground. So really its up to conviction. So out of Curiosity on Both Creationists and Evolutionists, what makes you believe in Evolution, or Creation; and why.

P.S. Please do not make you reason, "Because its true" or "Because science says so" Give me an actual reason/s. Scientific, philosophical, Logical, Spiritual, Moral, etc...

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?
keithprosser
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 11:57:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I am not a believer, and it is dangerous (if not arrogant) to speculate on other people psychology. However I do think that the big difference between a certain type of believer (which includes many creationists) is that for them the existence of god has the status of an axiom.
By that I mean that not only do they believe in the existence of god, but they believe the existence of god is 'obvious', as obvious as - for example - 1+1=2.

Let's do some imgining. Suppose one day a movement arose that claimed 1+1=3. The leader of this strange cult is Robert Dawson who writes books not only claiming that 1+1=3 but also that anyone who believes 1+1=2 is stupid and delusional, and teaching kids 1+1=2 is akin to child abuse.

Perhaps that seems absurd, because how could anyone deny 1+1=2? My point is that if you believe god exists is obviously and undeniably true as 1+1=2 then the atheist movement must appear as a strange, incomphensible, absurd and dangerous aberation.

My idea is that many Creationist type believers have brains wired up in such a way that the existence of god is, in effect, an extra axiom. If that is right then the reason that creationists and evolutionists can't agree is not that either side is more intelligent of more logical - the difference lies in the starting assumptions.

I am an atheist, but I can imagine that if I were a believer I would have posted that the problem with atheists and evoltionists is that they have unwittingly added the obiously false axiom 'god does not exist' to their set of assumtions, so it is wonder they reach faulty conclusions!
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 1:15:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 7:41:15 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 12:57:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197

I think you are missing the point of the entire question. I'm glad that you are trying to point things out about how Creation is not credible, but You did not tell me about Evolution. The purpose is not to tell who is wrong, the point is tell to why you choose this view. What I am trying to do is get inside the heads the participants of both stances. From what you put up here, you are showing me how to point out the faults of others. To discredit something without giving yourself a foundation. You are quick to judge, and very excited to prove something wrong. so, apparently you are for Evolution; so,I wanted to hear your thoughts about your view on Evolution. Why do you believe Evolution? You only attempted to discredit Creationism.

It seems you may have reading comprehension problems. The ToE is a scientific theory formulated using the scientific method. Do you really want or expect me to justify the scientific method to you? Are you the ungrateful beneficiary of the enormous success of the scientific method or are you a hermit living out in the wild writing letters back and forth to a relative to post these comments of yours?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 1:23:40 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
When Creationists and Evolutionists go head to head on facts and interpretations, they both come up with a different story. Both share the exact same evidence. Non-of them have evidence that the other does not have. So with the same evidences, they both come up with different interpretations. No matter how many facts thrown at each other, both do not budge their ground. So really its up to conviction. So out of Curiosity on Both Creationists and Evolutionists, what makes you believe in Evolution, or Creation; and why.

P.S. Please do not make you reason, "Because its true" or "Because science says so" Give me an actual reason/s. Scientific, philosophical, Logical, Spiritual, Moral, etc...

Your treating both as equal they are not.

If you really wanted too even with all the "facts" on the table you could still maintain that the planets are moved by invisible angels.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 1:59:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 8:09:11 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 12:57:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:

A creationist needs to establish a creator. Have you seen one around? No? In fact no-one has. There goes that 'theory'.

You are making on an observation on physical eyesight. No, I have not physically seen the Creator. But I have not seen air either, nor your Brain. Therefor, there is not air,, nor do we have a brain.

Inane. Have you ever felt the wind or taken a breath? Try holding your mouth and nose shut for 10 minutes. Ever heard of an MRI? Are you limited to only one sense instead of five plus all the extensions which man has developed to observe nature? Which of those senses has detected a creator?

Nonsense. One started from observation of nature and derived a theory to explain the evidence. That theory has stood the test of a century and a half of intense scrutiny and is still the most successful scientific theory ever discovered. The other simply ignores or dismisses the evidence. There is no comparison.

What I am saying is that we use the same Fossils that we dig from the ground. We see the same layer patterns in the mountains and canyons. We have the same rocks we pick up from the ground, but we use different methods to interpret where, when, why, how and what.

What methods? They are not scientific methods. Show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a reputable journal which advocates that the fossil evidence points to a one-time creation event rather than a gradual evolution over a billion years. If you are talking about non-expert science illiterates interpreting the evidence in any way they see fit then you are talking about opinion. You know what they say about opinions. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

Wrong. Creationism is not based on evidence but on received wisdom. The evidence in nature is totally at odds with a creation account and must constantly be rejected with absurd apologetics. Adam and Eve? Talking snakes? You must surely jest.

Wrong, Creationism is using the Bible, science, and History to explain how thing were made and how they came to be to today. Christianity is based on the knowledge of the Bible. Where wisdom comes in.

Thank you for confirming my claim. Received wisdom. Creationism does not use science. Don't be rdiculous. It abuses science. It is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Talking snakes? Bah! I too can jest!

Isn't that in the Bible creation account? Are you disowning it?

Surely you must not mean that I came from a monkey would ya?

The laughable ignorance of creationists revealed yet again. So much for using science.

There are no facts from a creationist. Show us the creator. Then you can talk about creation.

Once again you are basing yourself on the physical eyes. Therefore I still think you have no Brain.

Uh huh. That would be totally consistent with the lack of critical thought shown so far.

No, it is up to logic and reason rather than blind faith. It is about accepting the evidence impartially without a predetermined goal in mind. You don't start with a position and then scramble around to find support for it, dismissing what is inconvenient at every turn. You don't change your story continually as science discovers that the world is nothing like the creation account of the original authors. Allegory anyone?

Creationism is to based on science and logic.

Creationism is based on magic and the supernatural. Don't pretend otherwise. I'm sure you guys would love to hitch your wagon to science but you have to do more than just assert that you are doing so.

Evolution does it too. The difference is that we start off with a different beginning. We start with a Creator, you start off with a Big Bang.

First you were attempting to compete against evolution, now you raise the strawman of cosmogyny. The ToE has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. It doesn't even hinge on abiogenesis. It's purely about how life adapts and changes over time.

Just pray you don't go out like one.

Is that a threat?

You aren't curious. You are simply looking for some angle to deride evolutionary theory by pretending that you have a competing theory (couching it in scientific terms such as 'evidence'). In reality you have nothing other than God-dun-it.

I AM CURIOUS!!!! I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR FOUNDATION!!!!!

There is no need to get angry and shout. Your responses above confirm my suspicions. Fwiw, my foundation is the scientific method.

The ToE is the only one which can explain the history of the enormous diversity of life on this planet. It has multiple lines of evidence, has passed the test of time (well and truly), and is indispensable in our understanding of modern science in areas such as immunology, genetic medicine and pest control to name a few.

What is useful about creationism or ID? Nothing. Even if true, it would be a dead end since a supernatural explanation would be the end of observation and questioning. No research is possible and no predictions could be made. Humans would have to just give up and accept that logic and reason are useless in understanding reality.

ToE (Theory of Evolution) I'm still waiting for the name to change to The Law of Evolution.

That would be your ignorance again. A scientific theory is actually superior to a scientific law in that it explains the "why" and "how".

http://www.livescience.com...

Understanding of modern science in areas such as immunology, genetic medicine and pest control to name a few? Well, how about I bring some thins Creationism brought in. The Structure of the Atom, Quantum Electrodynamics, Modern Astronomy, the Modern Computer, the Electromagnetic Field, and several more.

Wtf? Lol.
OnlineMissionary197
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:17:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM, Danb6177 wrote:

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?

What I am talking about evidences, is that we uncover the same fossils, the same dirt, the same rocks, the same molecules, all in the same world. The issue is that we interpret the meaning of the material we find differently.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:20:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
When Creationists and Evolutionists go head to head on facts and interpretations, they both come up with a different story. Both share the exact same evidence. Non-of them have evidence that the other does not have. So with the same evidences, they both come up with different interpretations. No matter how many facts thrown at each other, both do not budge their ground. So really its up to conviction. So out of Curiosity on Both Creationists and Evolutionists, what makes you believe in Evolution, or Creation; and why.

P.S. Please do not make you reason, "Because its true" or "Because science says so" Give me an actual reason/s. Scientific, philosophical, Logical, Spiritual, Moral, etc...

What you're doing, is pre-supposing that it "just down to convictions".

It's not.

In reality, the entire combined sum of evidence from biology shows that Evolution is accurate (although most likely incomplete to some degree), and that Creationism is not accurate in any way shape or form.

The reality, is that Science treats the evidence with minimal bias; whereas Creationism treats some of the evidence with massive interpretational bias, and ignores or misrepresents a significant amount of the rest.

So what you have, is quite simple. One side is wrong, and the other is right. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's not merely both sides being just as good; you have one side that is deliberately distorting the argument.

So, the question is not why I am convinced by Evolution; but instead how can I make that claim when Creationists (so much more often) make the same claim about Evolution.

That is easier than you think.

Not least because most creationist websites state that this is what they're doing.

In general, it's easy to show that a significant number of Creationist arguments break down into one of the following:

1.) Lies.

Flat out, flagrant lies.

This includes dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (implying they mean something they didn't.) Saying that Transitional forms do not exist (when we have hundreds). That radiometric dating relies on untestable assumptions (no, when you actually look at it, all assumptions of radiometric dating have been repeatedly tested). That there is no "missing link" (we actually have dozens). There are also specifics; such as painting Nebraska Man, Microrapter and others as having "fooled the scientific community" when they did not; and using this to present others as frauds. Most importantly, that it hasn't been demonstrated (it really has).

You have Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Ken Ham, the Discovery Institute, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron and every single creationist I have ever seem demonstrably lying repeatedly most of the time about almost everything they claim to know.

2.) Straw men and gross misrepresentation.

This includes arguments such as evolution says we came from rocks (we didn't), or that it's about "random chance" (it's part of it, but evolution is non-random). That the it's the same thing as Cosmology or Abiogensis (it isn't). That it's Atheism in disguise (it isn't). That it's a form of religion (it's not). The nested hierarchy is flagrantly distorted as if anything can fit into a hierarchy (it can't), or that life is found that breaks the hierarchy (nothing has), that patterns in DNA are basically just similarities (they aren't), that vestigiality isn't relevant because the thing isn't functional (some definitely are, but even if they weren't, that isn't the point), that its' about frogs to prince (it isn't), or other major distortions and misrepresentation of either evidence, or features.

3.) Display no functional understanding of what they're arguing against, yet pretend that they do.

Most Creationists, including ones in the public domain misrepresent the science. For example, demanding gross monstrosities such as a cat turning into a dog; and arguing that flies still produce flies (whereas if you understood evolution, you'd know that's exactly what it does, but doesn't matter).

The list goes on and on and on.

Most importantly:

4.) They can't defend their position when challenged.

If you look carefully at 99% of creationist arguments, they generally have at least one aspect of the above dishonesty or misrepresentation in it somewhere, and when you call them out on it, one of two things happen:

- They will change the subject, subtly, or ask another question (without addressing anything you just said)
- They will simply ignore what you said and focus on another aspect that they feel they can defend.
- They will simply assert some fact or some information with no justification whatsoever as true repeatedly.
- Make some really bizarre fallacious argument to defend their position, and I've seen some crazy ones.

All of the above is factually accurate and demonstrable and while not every single last post a Creationist makes falls down onto one of those, most do eventually at some point; requiring some element of dishonesty or irrational argument to be injected at some point for one reason.

If a person with knowledge of evolution, and the willingness to learn about evidence and who is not irrational and is not dishonest, they wouldn't be a Creationist for very long.
OnlineMissionary197
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:24:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 1:15:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/9/2016 7:41:15 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 12:57:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197

It seems you may have reading comprehension problems. The ToE is a scientific theory formulated using the scientific method. Do you really want or expect me to justify the scientific method to you? Are you the ungrateful beneficiary of the enormous success of the scientific method or are you a hermit living out in the wild writing letters back and forth to a relative to post these comments of yours?

Neither, nor... I am well aware of The scientific method. If I mistranslated something from you comments, then I am sorry; my bad. So, I guess what you are trying to say is that whatever is proven by the Scientific Method is true, but what the Scientific Method does not prove is false. Am I understanding right, or can you clarify?
OnlineMissionary197
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:29:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 1:23:40 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
Your treating both as equal they are not.

If you really wanted too even with all the "facts" on the table you could still maintain that the planets are moved by invisible angels.
I am not sure if I completely understand you comment. But if I need to clarify, Both sides look at the world, investigates it, tests in it, etc... For example: Scientists uncover a fossil. It is accessible to all scientists. It is investigated, tested, and then they give a conclusion. Both scientists who have a different view on the world gives different interpretation on that same fossil. We have the same toys, but we make different stories.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:35:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:29:23 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:23:40 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
Your treating both as equal they are not.

If you really wanted too even with all the "facts" on the table you could still maintain that the planets are moved by invisible angels.
I am not sure if I completely understand you comment. But if I need to clarify, Both sides look at the world, investigates it, tests in it, etc... For example: Scientists uncover a fossil. It is accessible to all scientists. It is investigated, tested, and then they give a conclusion. Both scientists who have a different view on the world gives different interpretation on that same fossil. We have the same toys, but we make different stories.

Not all stories are equal. Eg, like the story that the motion of planets is caused by invisible angels.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
OnlineMissionary197
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:42:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I am thinking that people are not understanding my question...Perhaps I have worded it wrong. The purpose of this forum is to understand the thinking of the different view points.
For Evolutionists: Why do you believe Evolution? What makes it right? Why should we have that view too?
For Creationists: Why do you believe Creation? What makes it right? Why should we have that view too?

As far as I have seen, the only purpose of Evolution is to bully around, attack and discredit the very knowledge and authenticity of the Bible having the capacity to explain Science and the Universe's origins to the HUMAN RACE.... All I have seen are attacks. All offensive style comments. Non defensive. Barely any claim for its own. Do you understand what I am trying to get at?

This is not a debate. That is in another section of this website. this is informational. You can make your claims against the other view, but you have to give your stance of your view first.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:52:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:42:19 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
I am thinking that people are not understanding my question...Perhaps I have worded it wrong. The purpose of this forum is to understand the thinking of the different view points.
For Evolutionists: Why do you believe Evolution? What makes it right? Why should we have that view too?

Science

For Creationists: Why do you believe Creation? What makes it right? Why should we have that view too?

Cause bible says......

As far as I have seen, the only purpose of Evolution is to bully around, attack and discredit the very knowledge and authenticity of the Bible having the capacity to explain Science and the Universe's origins to the HUMAN RACE.... All I have seen are attacks. All offensive style comments. Non defensive. Barely any claim for its own. Do you understand what I am trying to get at?

This is not a debate. That is in another section of this website. this is informational. You can make your claims against the other view, but you have to give your stance of your view first.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:53:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:42:19 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
I am thinking that people are not understanding my question...Perhaps I have worded it wrong. The purpose of this forum is to understand the thinking of the different view points.
For Evolutionists: Why do you believe Evolution? What makes it right? Why should we have that view too?
For Creationists: Why do you believe Creation? What makes it right? Why should we have that view too?

As far as I have seen, the only purpose of Evolution is to bully around, attack and discredit the very knowledge and authenticity of the Bible having the capacity to explain Science and the Universe's origins to the HUMAN RACE.... All I have seen are attacks. All offensive style comments. Non defensive. Barely any claim for its own. Do you understand what I am trying to get at?

This is not a debate. That is in another section of this website. this is informational. You can make your claims against the other view, but you have to give your stance of your view first.

It's not that you've poorly worded your question; just that the question pre-supposes the validity of creationism. The answer to why I am convinced by evolution is simply that it is supported by all the evidence in physics, geology, biology and genetics; it's that simple.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:53:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:24:00 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:15:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/9/2016 7:41:15 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 12:57:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197

It seems you may have reading comprehension problems. The ToE is a scientific theory formulated using the scientific method. Do you really want or expect me to justify the scientific method to you? Are you the ungrateful beneficiary of the enormous success of the scientific method or are you a hermit living out in the wild writing letters back and forth to a relative to post these comments of yours?

Neither, nor... I am well aware of The scientific method. If I mistranslated something from you comments, then I am sorry; my bad. So, I guess what you are trying to say is that whatever is proven by the Scientific Method is true, but what the Scientific Method does not prove is false. Am I understanding right, or can you clarify?

Not true and false. Having a sound basis for belief and not having a sound basis for belief.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:20:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:53:51 PM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
When Creationists and Evolutionists go head to head on facts and interpretations, they both come up with a different story. Both share the exact same evidence. Non-of them have evidence that the other does not have. So with the same evidences, they both come up with different interpretations. No matter how many facts thrown at each other, both do not budge their ground. So really its up to conviction. So out of Curiosity on Both Creationists and Evolutionists, what makes you believe in Evolution, or Creation; and why.

P.S. Please do not make you reason, "Because its true" or "Because science says so" Give me an actual reason/s. Scientific, philosophical, Logical, Spiritual, Moral, etc...

Well, creationists tend to ignore most of the evidence that supports evolution, misinterprets many of the evidence (meaning they work top bottom, instead of bottom up), as well as evolution being actual science, and creationism not (how would you falsify creationism?). Plus, evolution is arrived at from an objective point of view, while creationism is arrived at from a very subjective point of view (they start with religion, and then make science conform to their worldviews).
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:37:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:17:26 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM, Danb6177 wrote:

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?

What I am talking about evidences, is that we uncover the same fossils, the same dirt, the same rocks, the same molecules, all in the same world. The issue is that we interpret the meaning of the material we find differently.
ahh ok I misunderstood
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:50:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:17:26 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM, Danb6177 wrote:

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?

What I am talking about evidences, is that we uncover the same fossils, the same dirt, the same rocks, the same molecules, all in the same world. The issue is that we interpret the meaning of the material we find differently.
Yes, those who support evolution use ther scientific method and creationists use a book written by ignorant bronze age goatherds.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 1:08:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:50:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:17:26 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM, Danb6177 wrote:

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?

What I am talking about evidences, is that we uncover the same fossils, the same dirt, the same rocks, the same molecules, all in the same world. The issue is that we interpret the meaning of the material we find differently.
Yes, those who support evolution use ther scientific method and creationists use a book written by ignorant bronze age goatherds.

And what is that scientific methed bul?
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 1:22:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 1:08:33 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:50:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:17:26 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM, Danb6177 wrote:

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?

What I am talking about evidences, is that we uncover the same fossils, the same dirt, the same rocks, the same molecules, all in the same world. The issue is that we interpret the meaning of the material we find differently.
Yes, those who support evolution use ther scientific method and creationists use a book written by ignorant bronze age goatherds.

And what is that scientific methed bul?
I think a little reading is in order, especially if you wish to discuss science.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 11:19:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 1:22:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:08:33 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:50:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:17:26 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM, Danb6177 wrote:

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?

What I am talking about evidences, is that we uncover the same fossils, the same dirt, the same rocks, the same molecules, all in the same world. The issue is that we interpret the meaning of the material we find differently.
Yes, those who support evolution use ther scientific method and creationists use a book written by ignorant bronze age goatherds.

And what is that scientific methed bul?
I think a little reading is in order, especially if you wish to discuss science.

well ive read a little. My beliefs say a creator created. You know them well so we dont really need to go into it.
Your beliefs say we came from a soup. So what process is used to make the soup stuff into a living thing and where did the things in the soup and the soup itself come from.
Just summarize to save space
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 11:25:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 11:19:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:22:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:08:33 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:50:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:17:26 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM, Danb6177 wrote:

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?

What I am talking about evidences, is that we uncover the same fossils, the same dirt, the same rocks, the same molecules, all in the same world. The issue is that we interpret the meaning of the material we find differently.
Yes, those who support evolution use ther scientific method and creationists use a book written by ignorant bronze age goatherds.

And what is that scientific methed bul?
I think a little reading is in order, especially if you wish to discuss science.

well ive read a little. My beliefs say a creator created. You know them well so we dont really need to go into it.
Your beliefs say we came from a soup. So what process is used to make the soup stuff into a living thing and where did the things in the soup and the soup itself come from.
Just summarize to save space

As you probably know, abiogenesis is being researched, and has been for decades.

How did YOUR God create life?
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:03:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 11:25:56 PM, janesix wrote:
At 2/10/2016 11:19:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:22:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:08:33 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:50:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:17:26 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM, Danb6177 wrote:

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?

What I am talking about evidences, is that we uncover the same fossils, the same dirt, the same rocks, the same molecules, all in the same world. The issue is that we interpret the meaning of the material we find differently.
Yes, those who support evolution use ther scientific method and creationists use a book written by ignorant bronze age goatherds.

And what is that scientific methed bul?
I think a little reading is in order, especially if you wish to discuss science.

well ive read a little. My beliefs say a creator created. You know them well so we dont really need to go into it.
Your beliefs say we came from a soup. So what process is used to make the soup stuff into a living thing and where did the things in the soup and the soup itself come from.
Just summarize to save space

As you probably know, abiogenesis is being researched, and has been for decades.

How did YOUR God create life?

Im sure they will come up with something soon.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:08:28 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 11:19:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:22:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:08:33 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:50:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:17:26 AM, OnlineMissionary197 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 10:32:53 PM, Danb6177 wrote:

Im a person who believes in a creator and I cant think of much evidence that creationists and evolutionist share. I think the processes are quite similar in drawing conclusions but the evidence is greatly different. What things do you see as being the same?

What I am talking about evidences, is that we uncover the same fossils, the same dirt, the same rocks, the same molecules, all in the same world. The issue is that we interpret the meaning of the material we find differently.
Yes, those who support evolution use ther scientific method and creationists use a book written by ignorant bronze age goatherds.

And what is that scientific methed bul?
I think a little reading is in order, especially if you wish to discuss science.

well ive read a little. My beliefs say a creator created. You know them well so we dont really need to go into it.
Your beliefs say we came from a soup. So what process is used to make the soup stuff into a living thing and where did the things in the soup and the soup itself come from.
Just summarize to save space

You asked what is the scientific method and proceed to prove that you haven't read about the scientific method. If you wish to discuss science then you need to educate yourself as to what science really is. So far you demonstrate that you have no clue what science is.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin