Evolutionism and Creationism?

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by smsmith40


51

The point I was making is that it is spurious to suggest that evloution is flawed because there is no evidence that wolves evolved into whales. That is not what the theory of evolution suggests or predicts. What Evolution does suggests is that they have common ancestors.

It doesn't matter what I or anyones argues. You are Christian, you have decided that your belief system is based on faith not fact.

My belief system is based on faith and fact. Just like yours is. You have to admit this. If you don't you're being totally biased.

faith: [ fth ]
n.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

You have a confident belief in evolution. That is faith.

So do you agree that it's wrong to say as a fact that wolves evolved into whales? Should an apology be given to all the children who were told that "spurious evidence"? If not, why not?

[Om]

51, are you a believer in the scientific method?

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5 .Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3.

If not, can you tell me why? And if so ... can you help me understand how you reconcile anything beyond #2 in the context of humanity's ruminations on the existence of God?

At least the evolutionists recognize it's a THEORY, and that a better THEORY may well come along to replace it. In the stead ot Absolute Truth, it's the best way humanity has yet come up with to try to give structure to the unknown.

You, sir, on the other hand, seem to offer only Truth as handed down to you via Christian Doctrine. It is Perfect, it is The Word From On High, it is Immutable.

Do you really not appreciate the difference?

[drumcop]

Originally posted by flashback
At this point, Creationism and Evolutionism are far too dogmatic to be called "theories". While their not mutually exclusive, I think it really comes down to a choice between scientific method and faith.

Evolution should be taugh in science class. Creationism should be taught in parochial schools.

Evolution is an afront to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy).

Teach both in public schoools and teach our children "how to think" not "what to think". Let them do their own research, debate, investigate and discover how to utilize their minds in a manner that gives them the ability to have their own beliefs; as well as learning for themselves just how to to stand behind that belief (via the research they complied and investigated).

What a concept...make us learn how to do our own research - not simply rely on another's ideas or thoughts (a newspaper article, magazine articles, or even the bully who yells louder over the subject at dinner).

[skinsfan51]

This is my last post for now because I need to actually do some work today. LOL.

TIME is not the savior for you evolutionary believers. No one has ever observed macroevolution, but you hope that TIME will prove it to be true. That HOPE is called FAITH.

You hope that TIME will produce the "missing links" that make gaping holes in your theory, but for now you just HOPE. That's called FAITH.

You hope that TIME will somehow vindicate evolution's claims that fly into the face of the laws of probability, thermodynamics, logic and common sense. That's called FAITH.

In the end, you have a whole lot of FAITH and not many FACTS. I know you don't like that, but those are the REAL FACTS here. Evolution never happened.

"In the beginning God created..." -Genesis 1:1

[Om]

Cool. When you come back, maybe you'll answer my questions.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by drumcop


Evolution is an afront to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy).

Teach both in public schoools and teach our children "how to think" not "what to think". Let them do their own research, debate, investigate and discover how to utilize their minds in a manner that gives them the ability to have their own beliefs; as well as learning for themselves just how to to stand behind that belief (via the research they complied and investigated).

What a concept...make us learn how to do our own research - not simply rely on another's ideas or thoughts (a newspaper article, magazine articles, or even the bully who yells louder over the subject at dinner).

I'll end my post for now by saying THANK YOU, DRUMCOP, FOR SAYING THIS. I'd love nothing more than to see our public school kids become better rational thinkers, instead of being told how to think.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Om
51, are you a believer in the scientific method?

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5 .Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3.

If not, can you tell me why? And if so ... can you help me understand how you reconcile anything beyond #2 in the context of humanity's ruminations on the existence of God?

At least the evolutionists recognize it's a THEORY, and that a better THEORY may well come along to replace it. In the stead ot Absolute Truth, it's the best way humanity has yet come up with to try to give structure to the unknown.

You, sir, on the other hand, seem to offer only Truth as handed down to you via Christian Doctrine. It is Perfect, it is The Word From On High, it is Immutable.

Do you really not appreciate the difference?

I'll post one more time because I was asked a question.

I believe in the scientific method, and I also believe that creationists can apply the same principles to what we believe and form the same theories. But what you are smart enough to know is that evolution is no longer taught as a theory in our society, and especially in the public schools. It's taught as an absolute fact. Just look as some of the posts in this very form (see panel's replies, for example). Will you please tell me how it went from a theory to a fact, and in your opinion should it go back to adhering to the scientific method and be treated as just a theory? If you do, then you must admit that the scientific community is deceiving people by saying that evolution is a fact. Right?

Please read this for further info: http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta34.html

[panel]

Originally posted by Om


No, sir.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

This is what I mean by too loosely defining our terms. And it's why it's so hard to have any kind of meaningful dialogue about this kind of subject in this kind of format.

I didn't mean their definitons are the same, I ment they go hand in hand. And when it come right down to it, it doesn't really matter that much what the exact definition is, even the scientist agrue what the definition should include..

[Om]

51,

I haven't been talking about this in context of what is taught in schools. I've been talking in context of the actual concepts themselves.

Yes, I'd like to see schools teach the theory of evolution.

And I'd like to see them teach the myriad different religious theories for the creation of life and universe espoused by humanity for the last 10,000 years.

And absolutely, I'd like them to teach Critical Thinking.

That established ... when you get back, I'd still like to hear your thoughts on reconciling religious doctrine with the scientific method.

[pez]

In my textbook it WAS theory... that was only in '92

[MrWill]

Originally posted by skinsfan51


So, I'll use my LOGIC and REASONING to call your lack of "hard facts" <B>FAITH.</b> You believe something you don't have all the answers for. In other words, you HOPE it's true. That is faith.

In spite of your answer, you still didn't answer my question.

Again...

Answer this. The eye hasn't always been around. But according to you it "evolved." Why? Nothing had ever seen anything and lived quite happily without an eye. So why did the eye just "evolve."

Nope....you're wrong. Don't mistake my desire to bring you out of your box as steadfast evolutionism. All I have said is that it has more support than creationism with respect to observation only.
OK....on to your question......how the eye evolved. I started to explain....but you clearly don't have the background to take it further for yourself. I mentioned the Lamprey's primitive light sensing eye. It is an example of how organs as complex as the eye get their beginning. It started as an organ that was very simple, and, over time natural selection is the reward given to organisms for their positively functioning adaptive mutations (that is what the first eye likely was...a mutation that carried its owner to the gene pool, thereby creating a 'new' organism that has an advantage).
If you haven't been able to guess by living in this world (and even society), mother nature can be very harsh.....and in her harshness, she gives life to adaptive changes (i.e. the 'selective' pressures she exhibits force life to adapt, and therefore create change).
What do you think we would look like if we lived on the moon? You could probably guess by knowing the conditions present at that location. Lower gravity, meaning less pressure on the bones, possibly leading to lower muscle mass, taller individuals, etc. If you can think like this, you can see the possibilities (which, I will state again, are not yet fact.....and may never be).
One last point for this post. If God gave you the ability to reason, think for yourself, etc......and it is found that it is not associated with the neopallium ('newer' part of the brain, found also in birds) or any other scientific mumbo jumbo......don't you think he would want you to use it with respect to the seemingly unanswerable questions we have about why we are here? Or, do you think he would want this spectacular ability to be tossed aside so we can all follow each other like lemmings?

[MrWill]

This conversation is one that will never go anywhere. This is because both sides will end up saying, 'I will never get through to these people'. Let me finish (provided there are no additional questions for me) by saying......if all you know is the bible, then maybe that should be your belief system. However, if you are educated beyond that you have no excuse to bury your head in antiquated information that is, in its simplest sense, heresay.

[Mister Happy]

Let me define Evolutionism and Creationsim as I believe they pertain to this thread.

Evolutionism means all the events, that occured to cause the earth to be the way it is now, happened without any influence of a higher power. Man, and all the animals for that matter, evolved out of the primordial soup.

Creationism means that a higher power was involved.

[ntotoro]

Now, wouldn't that be a b1tch if, in the end, we found out God created evolution...

Nick

[MrWill]

Originally posted by Zero Cool
Let me define Evolutionism and Creationsim as I believe they pertain to this thread.

Evolutionism means all the events, that occured to cause the earth to be the way it is now, happened without any influence of a higher power. Man, and all the animals for that matter, evolved out of the primordial soup.

Creationism means that a higher power was involved.

Thank you......so, very simply, it COULD be true that both concepts come into play at the same time. I don't think that is the arguement from my perspective. I am just disputing that people lived for 1000 years at a clip not too long ago.......and that Adam and Eve were the first two humans.....and that there was a giant named Goliath that was beaten down by little David......and that Moses parted the Red Sea......etc.......etc. I have no issue with saying that God IS mother nature....causing the adaptive changes that we are observing. Clearly, though, there is someone here who WON'T see it that way. Some fanatics want to discount the theory of evolution entirely. It IS just a theory....but, it is worth investigating.....which is more than I can say for the biblical version.