Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Evolution and Creationism Debate

Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:01:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Considering the recent backlash against evolution, I'd like to post this interesting debate. Notable participants include Kenneth Miller and Barry Lynn as advocates for evolution as well as Berlinski and others for creationism. Based on my own survey of the debate--which discuss personal motives for belief in creationism, how intelligent design is compatible with the temporal aspect of the fossil record, and so forth, the debate is quite extensive in subject.

Judging from the debate, how would you argue if you were in the position (creationist or evolution) that you agreed with or counter the other sides' arguments/alternate explanation? Do you agree with certain statements of both sides in reference to evolution?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:51:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 12:01:33 PM, Man-is-good wrote:


Considering the recent backlash against evolution, I'd like to post this interesting debate. Notable participants include Kenneth Miller and Barry Lynn as advocates for evolution as well as Berlinski and others for creationism. Based on my own survey of the debate--which discuss personal motives for belief in creationism, how intelligent design is compatible with the temporal aspect of the fossil record, and so forth, the debate is quite extensive in subject.

Judging from the debate, how would you argue if you were in the position (creationist or evolution) that you agreed with or counter the other sides' arguments/alternate explanation? Do you agree with certain statements of both sides in reference to evolution?

This video is very very old.

That being said, its quite a simple argument. Evolution has evidence that supports it, no evidence that contradicts it, cretaionism does not. Therefore evolution is science, creationism is not.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 1:28:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 12:51:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:01:33 PM, Man-is-good wrote:


Considering the recent backlash against evolution, I'd like to post this interesting debate. Notable participants include Kenneth Miller and Barry Lynn as advocates for evolution as well as Berlinski and others for creationism. Based on my own survey of the debate--which discuss personal motives for belief in creationism, how intelligent design is compatible with the temporal aspect of the fossil record, and so forth, the debate is quite extensive in subject.

Judging from the debate, how would you argue if you were in the position (creationist or evolution) that you agreed with or counter the other sides' arguments/alternate explanation? Do you agree with certain statements of both sides in reference to evolution?

This video is very very old.

That being said, its quite a simple argument. Evolution has evidence that supports it, no evidence that contradicts it, cretaionism does not. Therefore evolution is science, creationism is not.

Agreed, though I'm sure there are objections (cough cough Gileandos) to that statement.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:41:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Responses?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 11:06:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 1:28:32 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:51:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:01:33 PM, Man-is-good wrote:


Considering the recent backlash against evolution, I'd like to post this interesting debate. Notable participants include Kenneth Miller and Barry Lynn as advocates for evolution as well as Berlinski and others for creationism. Based on my own survey of the debate--which discuss personal motives for belief in creationism, how intelligent design is compatible with the temporal aspect of the fossil record, and so forth, the debate is quite extensive in subject.

Judging from the debate, how would you argue if you were in the position (creationist or evolution) that you agreed with or counter the other sides' arguments/alternate explanation? Do you agree with certain statements of both sides in reference to evolution?

This video is very very old.

That being said, its quite a simple argument. Evolution has evidence that supports it, no evidence that contradicts it, cretaionism does not. Therefore evolution is science, creationism is not.

Agreed, though I'm sure there are objections (cough cough Gileandos) to that statement.

I already crushed Gileandos and his objections in the other thread.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 11:29:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 11:06:24 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/1/2012 1:28:32 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:51:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:01:33 PM, Man-is-good wrote:


Considering the recent backlash against evolution, I'd like to post this interesting debate. Notable participants include Kenneth Miller and Barry Lynn as advocates for evolution as well as Berlinski and others for creationism. Based on my own survey of the debate--which discuss personal motives for belief in creationism, how intelligent design is compatible with the temporal aspect of the fossil record, and so forth, the debate is quite extensive in subject.

Judging from the debate, how would you argue if you were in the position (creationist or evolution) that you agreed with or counter the other sides' arguments/alternate explanation? Do you agree with certain statements of both sides in reference to evolution?

This video is very very old.

That being said, its quite a simple argument. Evolution has evidence that supports it, no evidence that contradicts it, cretaionism does not. Therefore evolution is science, creationism is not.

Agreed, though I'm sure there are objections (cough cough Gileandos) to that statement.

I already crushed Gileandos and his objections in the other thread.
Judging from what I read from his responses, I would agree....:)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 6:19:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no Evolution debate. Just a group of people who repeatedly claim that there is so often that people start to believe them.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 6:38:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 6:19:37 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
There is no Evolution debate. Just a group of people who repeatedly claim that there is so often that people start to believe them.

Did you read my first post?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 7:27:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No one has ever witnessed evolution and is not a proccess that is currently ongoing therefore cannot be tested and therefore cannot fit into the scientific method meaning it's not science. It's speculation.

Creationism is speculation. Evolution is speculation. They are therefore on equal footing.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 7:34:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:27:03 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No one has ever witnessed evolution and is not a proccess that is currently ongoing therefore cannot be tested and therefore cannot fit into the scientific method meaning it's not science. It's speculation.

Creationism is speculation. Evolution is speculation. They are therefore on equal footing.

No, they are not on equal footing becuase evolution is testable, meaning it falls within the realm of science, while Creationism is not testable, so it falls within the realm of superstition. In addition, there is a large body of evidence that supports evolution, while there is no evidence that supports Creationism.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 7:40:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:27:03 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No one has ever witnessed evolution
Are you suggesting that indirect inferences do not count as evidence?
and is not a proccess that is currently ongoing
...
therefore cannot be tested and therefore cannot fit into the scientific method meaning it's not science. It's speculation.
Science claims that something must be directly observed?

Creationism is speculation. Evolution is speculation. They are therefore on equal footing.
Creationism is far less of a science than the evolutionary theory....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 7:44:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Plus, in case if nobody except for tk and others, didn't read the first post, this thread was meant to at least discuss the DEBATE in the VIDEO not the general debate between evolution and creationism.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 11:58:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 6:38:18 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/2/2012 6:19:37 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
There is no Evolution debate. Just a group of people who repeatedly claim that there is so often that people start to believe them.

Did you read my first post?

Although he ignored your first post, in a way, he is correct. There is no debate in the scientific community as to whether evolution is correct, or not.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:04:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:27:03 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No one has ever witnessed evolution and is not a proccess that is currently ongoing therefore cannot be tested and therefore cannot fit into the scientific method meaning it's not science. It's speculation.

False on all accounts.


Creationism is speculation. Evolution is speculation. They are therefore on equal footing.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:04:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:27:03 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No one has ever witnessed evolution

Speciation has been witnessed. Evolution has been witnessed. Case and point, Ensatina salamander.

and is not a proccess that is currently ongoing

Evolution is constantly ongoing. Your daughter will have different genes than you, this is evolution.

therefore cannot be tested

False misconception about science. Only theories with experimental aspects are required to have repeatable tests which yeild the same result under the same circumstances. Case and point, the fusion of the stars. No one can test whether fusion occurs within stars to produce energy and no one has to, because there is no experimental aspect within that theory. We deduced from the evidence that fusion must be powering the stars.

and therefore cannot fit into the scientific method meaning it's not science. It's speculation.

As per above, your claim is false.

Creationism is speculation.

This is the first correct thing youve said.

Evolution is speculation. They are therefore on equal footing.

And, it appears, the last.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 8:31:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Creation is testable, but not falsifiable.

the premise that life was designed for the job it does is testable; for example, Life must adequately fulfill the purpose it was meant for with no unfustifiable compromises, the complexity and intelligence of the design should be inversely proportional to the stupidity of the flaws and oversights...

These are all truths that, as a designer, I see every day with things designed for a given purposes.

However, life FAILS at every single one of the above as completely as is possible. However this fact is simply ignored by Creationists with a vehemence that borders on intellectually dishonest if not clinically retarded. With arguments such as 'God wanted to test our faith by removing any evidence of creation and replacing it with overwhelmingly convincing evidence of evolution.'
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 8:41:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 8:31:09 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Creation is testable, but not falsifiable.

the premise that life was designed for the job it does is testable; for example, Life must adequately fulfill the purpose it was meant for with no unfustifiable compromises, the complexity and intelligence of the design should be inversely proportional to the stupidity of the flaws and oversights...

These are all truths that, as a designer, I see every day with things designed for a given purposes.

However, life FAILS at every single one of the above as completely as is possible. However this fact is simply ignored by Creationists with a vehemence that borders on intellectually dishonest if not clinically retarded. With arguments such as 'God wanted to test our faith by removing any evidence of creation and replacing it with overwhelmingly convincing evidence of evolution.'

Creation is not testable because it makes no predictions. Now, yes, we could test to see if life adequately performs its purpose but that requires us to know, ahead of time, what it's purpose is. But if we presume that life has a purpose, then that presumes that we were created with said purpose.

Now, we can make reasonable assumptions about what our purpose could have been if we were created, but they're just assumptions. A creator could have always created us with another purpose in mind.

Lastly, and with respect to Creationism, our purpose is to Worship and Love God, and that can't be tested.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 8:52:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:04:40 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/2/2012 7:27:03 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No one has ever witnessed evolution

Speciation has been witnessed. Evolution has been witnessed. Case and point, Ensatina salamander.

and is not a proccess that is currently ongoing

Evolution is constantly ongoing. Your daughter will have different genes than you, this is evolution.

therefore cannot be tested

False misconception about science. Only theories with experimental aspects are required to have repeatable tests which yeild the same result under the same circumstances. Case and point, the fusion of the stars. No one can test whether fusion occurs within stars to produce energy and no one has to, because there is no experimental aspect within that theory. We deduced from the evidence that fusion must be powering the stars.

and therefore cannot fit into the scientific method meaning it's not science. It's speculation.

As per above, your claim is false.

Creationism is speculation.

This is the first correct thing youve said.

Evolution is speculation. They are therefore on equal footing.

And, it appears, the last.

Virus mutations are an example of evolution, and they are observed on a daily basis.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 9:18:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:27:03 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No one has ever witnessed evolution and is not a proccess that is currently ongoing therefore cannot be tested and therefore cannot fit into the scientific method meaning it's not science. It's speculation.

Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their environment. For instance, virii mutate to become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics. Even creationists accept microevolution - small changes within a species over time. This is observable fact. For instance, cockroaches have been seen to adapt over generations to become resistant to certain pesticides which acts as a survival advantage. The test for macroevolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it does. As you dig deeper into fossil beds, they tend to get simpler and simpler in form. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as progressionism and is consistent with the theory of evolution.

Creationism is speculation. Evolution is speculation. They are therefore on equal footing.

Macroevolution easily meets the criteria for scientific theories. Furthermore it meets the criteria for the scientific method. The concept of evolution was derived scientifically by examining nature; this stands contrary to theories that rival evolution like creationism (for which there is no reason to believe whatsoever and instead is just a blatant and completely far-fetched guess without a shred of evidence).

If you want to see a step-by-step and easy explanation, check out this debate in which I explained exactly how evolution meets the requirements of pertaining to the scientific method. Sorry to break it to you.

http://www.debate.org...
President of DDO
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2012 11:55:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Speciation is not enough to proven common descent and actually speciation is not, or at least should not, denied by an intelligent defender of Creationism. To say that all living organisms came from a single celled organism is a vast claim. To point to an example of speciation, mind you though a deteriorating process not a progressive one, is a small pce of evidence to make such a vast inference
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 12:03:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/19/2012 11:55:44 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
Speciation is not enough to proven common descent and actually speciation is not, or at least should not, denied by an intelligent defender of Creationism. To say that all living organisms came from a single celled organism is a vast claim. To point to an example of speciation, mind you though a deteriorating process not a progressive one, is a small pce of evidence to make such a vast inference

Here's your piece: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here's the answer to whatever your next objection is: http://www.talkorigins.org...
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 7:18:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 12:03:49 AM, Wnope wrote:
Here's your piece: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here's the answer to whatever your next objection is: http://www.talkorigins.org...

I don't see how your first link is relevant in the least bit when did not deny speciation. You don't have to give me review.

Basically I was getting to the idea that just because a process is occurring today doesn't mean you can rewind it indefinitely. Especially when you see that all observed instances of speciation or degenerative, you do not get to a single celled ancestor but an ancestor capable of expressing all, or almost all, of the traits expressed in all life today. That of course is not accepted by anyone that I know about.

And as for the second page, I see you are quite arrogant in your belief. Looking at the following page I will show you a mistake I found rather easily. In fact, it was the first place I traveled to.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
"A logical consequence of this claim is that the Bible cannot, in fact, be trusted, because parts of it (not only Genesis) are known to be wrong if interpreted literally."

he problem with his logic lies in the last word which is appalling that he added it in. Are we to interpret poetry in Psalms literally? How about the dream that David interpreted figuratively? The entire Bible is not meant to be read literally. As such, compare to a newspaper.

When a newspaper is read, nobody reads the obituaries and claims, "This isn't funny, why did I buy this?" Likewise, the comics aren't read with the conclusion, "Why isn't anything on sale?" The classifieds aren't read while thinking, "There are no sports games here."

The Bible is similar. It is a collection of different books, and parts in the books as in all books, may be interpreted differently then the rest of the book. This just shows a common "evolutionist" objection based on misunderstanding of their opponent's theory which ironically, they claim their opponents are doing. Inevitably it happens on both sides, however, it happens much more often on the "evolutionist" side then on the creationist.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 8:34:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:27:03 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
No one has ever witnessed evolution and is not a proccess that is currently ongoing therefore cannot be tested and therefore cannot fit into the scientific method meaning it's not science. It's speculation.

Creationism is speculation. Evolution is speculation. They are therefore on equal footing.

You are almost completely wrong on all counts, to a point bordering on the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. Evolution has been proven to be going on right now, has been tested and witnessed. So by all of your measures, it satisfies itself as beyond speculation.

Moreover, I would point out that your measures are a grotesque and gross misrepresentation of the requirements of the scientific process which you may find comforting in resolving your own cognitive dissonance, but is very detached from reality as, it seems, are you.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 2:19:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 7:18:28 AM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
Basically I was getting to the idea that just because a process is occurring today doesn't mean you can rewind it indefinitely.

No, but you do get too look for clues that it might have been occuring in the past, like say fossils. Then when you find those, it makes for a fairly compelling argument that it did occur in the past.

Especially when you see that all observed instances of speciation or degenerative, you do not get to a single celled ancestor but an ancestor capable of expressing all, or almost all, of the traits expressed in all life today. That of course is not accepted by anyone that I know about.

If the first part, "all observered instances of speciation or (sic) degenerative", then an argument might be relevant. One problem that argument has is the work by Richard Lenski in which a new bacteria evolved during a lab test in which environmental factors were changed. The new bacteria evolved to grow on citric acid where the original bacteria had no capabilities to process it.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 12:30:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 7:18:28 AM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
Basically I was getting to the idea that just because a process is occurring today doesn't mean you can rewind it indefinitely.

Yeah. Just because Gravity exists today, doesnt mean it existed 5000 years ago!

Thats how absurd your argument is. Yes, infact it is reasonable, plausible, and accurate to believe that a norm has always existed, until contradicting evidence is brought to light.

Especially when you see that all observed instances of speciation or degenerative, you do not get to a single celled ancestor but an ancestor capable of expressing all, or almost all, of the traits expressed in all life today. That of course is not accepted by anyone that I know about.

Except that we have examples of increased information, like Nylon digesting bacteria.

And as for the second page, I see you are quite arrogant in your belief. Looking at the following page I will show you a mistake I found rather easily. In fact, it was the first place I traveled to.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
"A logical consequence of this claim is that the Bible cannot, in fact, be trusted, because parts of it (not only Genesis) are known to be wrong if interpreted literally."

he problem with his logic lies in the last word which is appalling that he added it in. Are we to interpret poetry in Psalms literally? How about the dream that David interpreted figuratively? The entire Bible is not meant to be read literally. As such, compare to a newspaper.

Then how do you go upon differentiating what parts of the bible are literal, and what parts are metaphorical? How do you know that Genesis is not Metaphorical?

If we look at Genesis as metaphor, which many Christians do, evolution would be true.

When a newspaper is read, nobody reads the obituaries and claims, "This isn't funny, why did I buy this?" Likewise, the comics aren't read with the conclusion, "Why isn't anything on sale?" The classifieds aren't read while thinking, "There are no sports games here."

This analogy makes no sense.

The Bible is similar. It is a collection of different books, and parts in the books as in all books, may be interpreted differently then the rest of the book.

Great! So whats stopping creationists from interpreting Genesis as Metaphor and not literally.

This just shows a common "evolutionist" objection based on misunderstanding of their opponent's theory which ironically, they claim their opponents are doing.

No, the objection is valid. Click on the link there, and it will take you to this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud.

That alone is wrong, and yet clearly it is supposed to be taken literally.

Inevitably it happens on both sides, however, it happens much more often on the "evolutionist" side then on the creationist.

Except that i just showed you that all your examples of how "Evolutionists" misrepresent creationists, fails. And yet, we still have droves and droves of examples of how creationists are STILL misrepresenting Evolution.

I am not saying that there are no evolutionists who have misrepresented creationism, but the numbers are far, far, far, far, far less, and far less frequent.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2012 12:49:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:41:46 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Responses?

Boring and stupid. Lol no offense.. it was kinda interesting.. but creationism is just down right dumb. I like how full of himself the creationist is lol.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 12:39:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Debate what debate? there is nothing to debate about? If the bibles word is the truth, what is the issue? Just have faith in it. Does the church not cover that topic.

The reason for education is make us more efficient in the words, learning to make better decisions to increase the efficiency of a society. Scientific theory increases our ability to predict the world so we can make better decisions. THat is to increase are ability to manipulate the world around us to are advantage, and so we have progress. Evolution gives us the ability to predict how bacteria might change, the history of live, what change in enviroment will have on life, increase are understanding for biotechnology. We already use it in our favour in breeding anymales and plantes and food. We maybe able to manipulate how thing evolve to fight diseases.. Evolution as scienfic theory change and evoles upon new knowledge inproving over time. It may completly change later but we find through tesing appication. All this increases the power of humanity on its world.
Now lets look at creationalism. Its been the the best explanation for most of all time before darwin. How would its re-adoption benifit society more? How does it surpase the explanitory power of evolutionary modal? What is the improvement upon the evolutionary modal? How does it benifit the progress of humanity.
There is no Religion vs science conflict? if it was supportable it would just be science. Its only Religion agreesiveness.

What wrong with the church doing its own demonstration and experiments? Its tax free and I am sure Creational scientist are capable. no? ;)

What is there to debate about?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 10:03:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/6/2012 12:49:32 AM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:41:46 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Responses?

Boring and stupid. Lol no offense.. it was kinda interesting.. but creationism is just down right dumb. I like how full of himself the creationist is lol.

Eh, they were foolish. I especially loved the part when Berlinski showed that he did not understand that species adopt to individual niches, or when one attempted to disprove science by either a) displaying the falsity of the Hagel photos (in an attempt to disprove embryological ties to evolution?) or b) a section or passage from Miller's own work.

As Kenneth Miller himself said, one side is showing evidence; the other is asking for more evidence....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 10:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 10:03:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 2/6/2012 12:49:32 AM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:41:46 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Responses?

Boring and stupid. Lol no offense.. it was kinda interesting.. but creationism is just down right dumb. I like how full of himself the creationist is lol.

Eh, they were foolish. I especially loved the part when Berlinski showed that he did not understand that species adopt to individual niches, or when one attempted to disprove science by either a) displaying the falsity of the Hagel photos (in an attempt to disprove embryological ties to evolution?) or b) a section or passage from Miller's own work.

As Kenneth Miller himself said, one side is showing evidence; the other is asking for more evidence....

yeah that is how you tell who is decieving, its usually one making clear claim and other making vague claim and asking you to prove what does not exist.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL