Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Is evolution more believable than creation?

dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 12:38:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think creation is more believable, but I still think evolution is the path to take.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 12:40:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What do you guys think?
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 1:04:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 12:40:00 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
What do you guys think?

Young-earth creationism is a joke, it's pretty much as realistic as the Flintstones. It's been proven to be nothing more than pseudo-science time and time again through objective, scientific studies. It's adherents only believe in it because they feel that they're religious views are threatened or invalidated because of the discoveries of modern science.

Evolution, on the other hand, is an objective truth, the fact that it happened and is still happening is not disputed. That's not to say there still isn't more work to be done in the field, we certainly don't know everything about the evolutionary process- but we've discovered and observed enough to know it to be true.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 1:13:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 1:04:11 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 12/16/2013 12:40:00 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
What do you guys think?

Young-earth creationism is a joke, it's pretty much as realistic as the Flintstones. It's been proven to be nothing more than pseudo-science time and time again through objective, scientific studies. It's adherents only believe in it because they feel that they're religious views are threatened or invalidated because of the discoveries of modern science.

Evolution, on the other hand, is an objective truth, the fact that it happened and is still happening is not disputed. That's not to say there still isn't more work to be done in the field, we certainly don't know everything about the evolutionary process- but we've discovered and observed enough to know it to be true.

Are you an athiest?
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 1:14:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 1:13:14 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/16/2013 1:04:11 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 12/16/2013 12:40:00 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
What do you guys think?

Young-earth creationism is a joke, it's pretty much as realistic as the Flintstones. It's been proven to be nothing more than pseudo-science time and time again through objective, scientific studies. It's adherents only believe in it because they feel that they're religious views are threatened or invalidated because of the discoveries of modern science.

Evolution, on the other hand, is an objective truth, the fact that it happened and is still happening is not disputed. That's not to say there still isn't more work to be done in the field, we certainly don't know everything about the evolutionary process- but we've discovered and observed enough to know it to be true.

Are you an athiest?

Nope, just very very afraid of dying.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 4:58:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem I find is that it is almost impossible to find out what is "creation theory" in any real detail. 99% of what creationists talk about is evolution theory and its weaknesses. So I find there is no choice.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 5:08:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 1:04:11 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 12/16/2013 12:40:00 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
What do you guys think?

Young-earth creationism is a joke, it's pretty much as realistic as the Flintstones. It's been proven to be nothing more than pseudo-science time and time again through objective, scientific studies. It's adherents only believe in it because they feel that they're religious views are threatened or invalidated because of the discoveries of modern science.

Evolution, on the other hand, is an objective truth, the fact that it happened and is still happening is not disputed. That's not to say there still isn't more work to be done in the field, we certainly don't know everything about the evolutionary process- but we've discovered and observed enough to know it to be true.

That sounds like a typical middle-schooler's assessment, just parroting what you've been told to think, and repeating the same old tired talking points. This kind of assessment is a dime a dozen, and it's easy to pick out people who really don't know much about what the evidence actually shows, just based on their comments. It would behoove you to actually do some research, and think for yourself instead of just taking up the majority position.
TaOOO
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 6:56:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 12:38:46 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
I think creation is more believable, but I still think evolution is the path to take.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "the path to take". I find evolution infinitely more believable. In fact, the more I study it, the more necessary and valuable it becomes to have a deep understanding of it. I've been a researcher on a few different topics for 8 years and have taught zoology for 5 years. I don't think there's many times evolutionary theory hasn't been intimately tied to biology education and several aspects of medical and conservation work. It would be interesting to see how it's done under a "creation" banner, I can barely conceive what it would be like.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 7:32:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 12:38:46 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
I think creation is more believable, but I still think evolution is the path to take.

Look at the people who are proponents of Evolution and those who are proponents of Creationism.

- Many Creationists state that science and scientific theories, regardless of the evidence, should be rejected if it disagrees with the Bible. Science on the other hand can be demonstrated to be self-corrected with no "universal truths", Evolution itself has been corrected and modified to include new evidence several times.

- Most Creationsists flat out lie: From Hovind who claims he has a PhD and has taught science; yet is confuses Chromosome, Genome, Genes and Base Pairs; the most rudimentary phyiscs (and note he also says that comets hitting the earth at 27,000km/s would create "cold spots") to Michael Behe who claimed "no studies of the molecular evidence of" his irreucibly complex organelles were present, but when challenged provided thousands. Extending to the dover trial where the Creationists who were responsible for teaching creationism were found to have lied under oath. Moreover, there are still repeated claims that we have never seen one type of atom turn into another (ignoring that biggest bomb ever made, Nuclear fission and fusion all the man-made elements we have created).

- Creationists often distort: The micro-raptor, Nebraska Man, Haekles, and Piltdown are all held up as examples of science being completely fooled and fraudulent: Whereas in reality the first two were never accepted by science, Haekles actually turning out to be true, and Piltdown discovered to be fraud by science. And the infamous bananaman....

- Most Creationists consistently misunderstand or misrepresent: From claiming that "life was created by lightening striking a mud puddle", or "evolution is just a theory", or "show me a crocoduck" are all examples where they are simply flat-out misrepresenting evolution.

- Most Creationists consistently engage in rhetorical straw men rather than science. Crocoducks, mudpuddles are example; show me a bird turning into a dog; why are there still monkeys, humans are descended from monkeys, and many, many more. They invent words such as "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionist" so they can use language that implies that those who are convinced by evolution somehow have faith rather than demonstrating it is true.

- No Creationists provide positive or objective claims: None of them offer predictions, points of falsifiability, objective definitions of "kinds", or any other process or principles that could prove them wrong; contrary to science that MUST provide such mechanisms. At best they seem to hijack evolution.

- Creationists make semantic, rather than substantive arguments. For example, Evolution requires new genes to come into existance without affecting old ones. This can be demonstrated, but all such examples are rejected on the grounds that they are no "new information", without providing any reasoning why "new information" in this way is actually required. Again, new functionality, features and wholesale changes occurs and is rejected as "not being what they want", whilst never providing any definitive objective description of what we need to see...

- Creationists do not explain any evidence. Creationism doesn't explain atavisms, weird morphology (such as the giraffes laryngal never), the complete nested heirarchy, why ANY transitional forms occur, why molecular evidence matches the nested set, vestigiality or why there are "kinds" that are really close to each other, and "kinds" that are far apart. Evolution provides a comprehensive framework to explain these; and most if not all are simply ignored by Creationism using arbitrary or random "it doesn't count" argument and thus does not need to be explained.

- Creationists make wild, outlandish claims that are so nonsensically retarded it defies belief: Such as water spurting from the earth cause craters on the moon (ignoring the craters on the opposing side), or that a volcano was responsible for "firing" animals to their current locations... When they actually come up with a theory, it is so flagrantly ridiculous and can be disproven by anyone with a highschool physics education.

- Creationists accuse "evolutionists" of indoctrinating youth by providing descriptions of how things are beleived to have come about from the principles of science; ignoring the fact most science book use terms such as "It is beleived that..." or "evidence shows..." in most cases where a theory is not complete: and in many cases the Creationists own textbooks tell children to beleive in the bible over evidence, that the loch ness monster exists; and that the sun is a gas boiler that is getting smaller.

- Creationists ignore the fact that their theory fails at anything more than a basic superficial level. From molecular evidence, to the nested heirarchy, to atavisms, vestigiality, the nature of bio-diversity, the fact that the earth is older than 10,000 years, and that any positive claim that one could make about "creation" has been disproved. They either ignore such evidence, or say it "doesn't count".

Even before you look into the comprehensive evidence one way or another; before you look at the vast sum of evidence in support of evolution, it can be categorically demonstrated that those who propose Creationism as a valid, scientific premise can almost unanimously be shown to be ridiculous liars, charlatans and frauds at the most basic and fundamental level.

Evolution, as it pertains to life and the biodiversity of life and Abiogenesis which explains the origin (and yes, they are seperate theory that use different processes and different mechanisms to explain different occurances) can be summarised VERY simply. So can creation.

The difficulty is, and the reason that on the surface of things Creation seems comparible to evolution is that you have to get down to the REALLY complicated aspects of life, biodiversity, genetics, statistics and the evidence to actually appreciate the nature and power of Evolution. The individual aspects of evolution can be demonstrated and shown, and they ALL have to be used together as a framework to explain life; most counter arguments to evolution doesn't attempt to do this; but simply focus on small parts without viewing the whole.

Creation doesn't attempt to do so; it remains a superficial summary with no explanatory power.
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 5:41:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 5:08:23 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/16/2013 1:04:11 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 12/16/2013 12:40:00 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
What do you guys think?

Young-earth creationism is a joke, it's pretty much as realistic as the Flintstones. It's been proven to be nothing more than pseudo-science time and time again through objective, scientific studies. It's adherents only believe in it because they feel that they're religious views are threatened or invalidated because of the discoveries of modern science.

Evolution, on the other hand, is an objective truth, the fact that it happened and is still happening is not disputed. That's not to say there still isn't more work to be done in the field, we certainly don't know everything about the evolutionary process- but we've discovered and observed enough to know it to be true.

That sounds like a typical middle-schooler's assessment, just parroting what you've been told to think, and repeating the same old tired talking points. This kind of assessment is a dime a dozen, and it's easy to pick out people who really don't know much about what the evidence actually shows, just based on their comments. It would behoove you to actually do some research, and think for yourself instead of just taking up the majority position.

I actually used to adhere to creationist views up until the seventh grade; I spent most of middle-school in a private Baptist school, and didn't leave for public school until the ninth grade. In any case, it's not as if I'm trying to prove anything; I'm just voicing my opinion. But if you think that you're arguments for creationism can stand up to my criticisms of it, I'd be more than happy to debate you.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 12:48:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think creation is more believable, but I still think evolution is the path to take.

Depends on what you mean by evolution and creation.

There are many scientists who believe that a God who created the universe (initiated the Big-Bang, made sure things turned out the way they did), is comparatively as likely as a God-less evolution resulting in what we see today (extremely low odds). I don't see anything wrong with that position.

However, there are some who let their religious beliefs contradict basic facts we know about the evolutionary process, when following modern religions (Christianity). In that case, I would say a God-less evolution is MUCH more believable then this demonstrably false view some theists hold.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.