Evolution vs Creationism?

[Misbelief]

Are they still lizards? Yes, and they will remain such. Variations is certainly a part of natural selection, variation within the species. No different than Dawin's finches.

"But many biologists, looking at evolution over longer time intervals, have noted that species are rarely modified consistently in one direction long enough for significant evolutionary change to accumulate. Even the Galapagos finches seem to oscillate, not really "going any where" in an evolutionary sense. The reason is that short-term environmental change tends to be cyclical, so natural selection is not likely to keep pushing a species in any one particular direction long enough for new species or major new adaptations to evolve. Furthermore, every species is broken up into local populations, each of which belongs to a different local ecosystem-making it even less likely that natural selection will modify the entire species in any particular way as time rolls on."

Eldredge, Niles Evolution and Environment: The two faces of biodiversity," Natural History, June 1998, pp.54-55

Shifting the goal post. You made the claim it can create nothing new, he gave an example... This is how dishonest you are.

You don't even admit that what you said is incorrect, you just shift and move on.

 

[Crossroads]

Shifting the goal post. You made the claim it can create nothing new, he gave an example... This is how dishonest you are.

You don't even admit that what you said is incorrect, you just shift and move on.

Thank you :2razz:

 

[Crossroads]

Are they still lizards? Yes, and they will remain such. Variations is certainly a part of natural selection, variation within the species. No different than Dawin's finches.

"But many biologists, looking at evolution over longer time intervals, have noted that species are rarely modified consistently in one direction long enough for significant evolutionary change to accumulate. Even the Galapagos finches seem to oscillate, not really "going any where" in an evolutionary sense. The reason is that short-term environmental change tends to be cyclical, so natural selection is not likely to keep pushing a species in any one particular direction long enough for new species or major new adaptations to evolve. Furthermore, every species is broken up into local populations, each of which belongs to a different local ecosystem-making it even less likely that natural selection will modify the entire species in any particular way as time rolls on."

Eldredge, Niles Evolution and Environment: The two faces of biodiversity," Natural History, June 1998, pp.54-55

You're not likely to see a change in species in your lifetime, due to the whole "takes a damn long time" thing. As I said, look at my example. An entire new structure, within some 30 years. Now add millions of years. Now add millions and millions of years worth of mutations. Now add on the evident change and disappearance of certain species in the fossil record, and the emergence of utterly new ones. I'm assuming this was stated before, but I'll state it again, the evolutionary theory is not perfect, but almost all the evidence we can see fits that theory, and that evidence is quite substantial, so it would seem to be the best explanation so far for how humans came to be on this little planet.

 

[Anrch-Cptlst]

Where is the evidence for Creationism? It's a claim with no facts

 

[blackjack50]

Nope. Just sayin' there's no evidence the universe is 6000 years old. That claim has been disproven..

That isn't what Creationism means. Nor is that what ALL Christians believe. I myself am a Christian who believes in both Evolution and Creationism.

Proofs are for mathematics. Evidence is what we look for in science. I'd comment on YOUR understanding on science but you'd need one for me to comment on it.

Well riddle me this batman: should I reject the notion that murder is bad based solely on the claims that it is? I have not seen any definitive proof that murder is bad?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

That isn't what Creationism means. Nor is that what ALL Christians believe. I myself am a Christian who believes in both Evolution and Creationism.

That's Intelligent Design = / = Creationism.

Well riddle me this batman: should I reject the notion that murder is bad based solely on the claims that it is? I have not seen any definitive proof that murder is bad?

Yes. I do as well.

 

[blackjack50]

You can't "believe" in both.

You can believe in Creationism, because it's religion, meaning, unsubstantiated claims.

Evolution is natural fact. People don't have to "believe" in it, there's no need. They can either acknowledge the fact or dismiss it for their own personal reasons.

That is just silly.

Believe: "To accept something as true, genuine, or real."

You are simply arguing semantics. Belief has nothing to do with fact. It has to do with acceptance of a certain statement be it false or true. I can claim someone is an idiot for not beliving something that is overwhelmingly proven scientifically. I of course have a much harder time being rude and calling someone names for believing in something that is a far more abstract/philosophical in concept than Evolution (which in fact is not abstract/philosophical at all). Please leave the semantics at the door.

 

[blackjack50]

That's Intelligent Design = / = Creationism.

What is Creationism?

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Creationism - Answers in Genesis

https://www.google.com/search?q=creationism&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=

Google is thine friend.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

What is Creationism?

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Creationism - Answers in Genesis

https://www.google.com/search?q=creationism&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=

Google is thine friend.

You realize Intelligent design is a type of Creationism, right? I'm not sure what your argument has turned in to. Would you like to first establish proper definitions?

 

[blackjack50]

Yes. I do as well.

So only because YOU reject it I should also reject it? I don't NEED definitive proof that murder is bad to just accept it? Certainly one might make the case that murder could be benificial to some people. Someone who might stand to gain from such an act? Or is there something intrinsically wrong with murder?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

So only because YOU reject it I should also reject it?

It doesn't matter to me if you do, but don't hold me to your standards.

I don't NEED definitive proof that murder is bad to just accept it?

That's your call.

Certainly one might make the case that murder could be benificial to some people. Someone who might stand to gain from such an act?

Yes

Or is there something intrinsically wrong with murder?

That's an argument. It's certainly not objectively wrong. Subjectively? Surely. Would you like to argue this?

 

[blackjack50]

You realize Intelligent design is a type of Creationism, right? I'm not sure what your argument has turned in to. Would you like to first establish proper definitions?

You said,

Nope. Just sayin' there's no evidence the universe is 6000 years old. That claim has been disproven..

If Creationism is a BROAD concept that involves intelligent design as well...well then why would you make that particular statement if it is not at all what I am refering too?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

You said,



If Creationism is a BROAD concept that involves intelligent design as well...well then why would you make that particular statement if it is not at all what I am refering too?

Did you specify? No. YE Creationism was disproven long ago and now, creationism has fled to try to take make new claims (which basically amount to "You can't explain that yet so 'goddidit!"

 

[midnighttequila]

Hello everyone reading.
First of all, I used to believe in the creation of our world by a powerful omnipotent being. I do no more. The answer to that question is another long story, but I wanted to answer to your question first. I accept that the bible is a book that has some interesting messages to us. My parents used to read me passages fro the bible, so I know that "God" supposedly gave us free will. I do realize what free will is and what that entitles to. Free will is your own choice to think, do, belive in, say, or to agree or disagree with me.

I don't need a constitution or a bible to tell me I have free will to believe in whatever I want to. "I think; therefor, I am." I knew I had free will the very first moment I disobeyed authority; for example, my parents. You have the same free will to believe in whatever you like, as long as it doesnt involve in somone, you or myself, getting hurt.

Spark ya later!

 

[Paralogic]

What do you mean when you use the word 'evolution'?

I mean Evolution. Read up Biology 101 in your neighborhood City College or University.

 

[Green Balls]

The main point where I disagree with creationism is the timeline. Somehow the earth is 6000 years old (well, at least the creationism I have heard of). There are writings in locations of Egypt that have been scientifically proven to be written as early as 10,000 BC. We can pretend that carbon dating doesn't exist for the sake of arguing that we have a mismatch of a major time frame difference on this. I could go at lengths about Egypt, but I'll rest my case there.

 

[blackjack50]

It doesn't matter to me if you do, but don't hold me to your standards.

Wait? So you can't be held to MY standards when it comes to a belief? What about me? Should I be held to YOUR standards?

That's your call.

But you were saying to believe something without definitive proof isn't right? So it can't be my call about creationism, but it can be about murder?

That's an argument. It's certainly not objectively wrong. Subjectively? Surely. Would you like to argue this?

So murder isn't "objectively" wrong? I assume you are in the camp that states certain moral values DO NOT exist. So murder cannot be "objectively wrong" because it is only a matter of opinion.

Is "thou shalt not kill" pretty much a universal idea in mankind?

 

[marduc]

Wait? So you can't be held to MY standards when it comes to a belief? What about me? Should I be held to YOUR standards?



But you were saying to believe something without definitive proof isn't right? So it can't be my call about creationism, but it can be about murder?



So murder isn't "objectively" wrong? I assume you are in the camp that states certain moral values DO NOT exist. So murder cannot be "objectively wrong" because it is only a matter of opinion.

Is "thou shalt not kill" pretty much a universal idea in mankind?

No thou shalt not kill is not a universal. there are times and instances when killing is deemed acceptable, and even encouraged or praised. Killing in self defense esp. in defense of your family for instance, war (especially defensive), societal and individual views on execution for murderers for another. Circumstances can and do make exceptions where the killing of another is acceptable, so, yes, it is subjective.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Wait? So you can't be held to MY standards when it comes to a belief? What about me? Should I be held to YOUR standards?

I don't really see how you can claim you have standards if you are as accepting as you seem to be to the idea of a personal "god."

But you were saying to believe something without definitive proof isn't right? So it can't be my call about creationism, but it can be about murder?

Because there is no evidence that murder is wrong. There is evidence that the world isn't 6000 years old.

So murder isn't "objectively" wrong? I assume you are in the camp that states certain moral values DO NOT exist. So murder cannot be "objectively wrong" because it is only a matter of opinion.

Is "thou shalt not kill" pretty much a universal idea in mankind?

Doesn't matter if it is a "universal idea in mankind." It's not objective. Marduc chimed in on why it's subjective and not objective.

 

[Surtr]

I am just curious what people's views are on "creationism." I can look up the definition...I would like to see some views on what YOU think it is.

I personally do not feel that they are mutualy exclusive. I can reconcile evolution within my view of creation in terms of my religion. I just want other people to tell me what they believe.

It irritates me when someone assumes that because I believe in creationism...that I don't belive in Evolution. I do. I believe in both. But anyway. Let me know.

To me, creationism is simply the philosophical venture in theorizing the creation of Earth and the life within its atmosphere.

Creationism is a funny thing in that there are many different types of "creationism", but whenever creationism is brought up, people instantly think of young earth creationists. Those people cannot be taken seriously, since the whole basis of YEC is based on half-assed pseudotheology. I can understand the metaphorical point of view based on the Book of Genesis, it's actually pretty interesting to me, and some of what's written, when taken metaphorically, does kind of correlate with how the formation of Earth may have occurred. I just don't believe that it's factual in any way.

I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, but I do believe the Theory of Evolution as the explanation of how we are what we are today. Evolution did happen, it's still happening, it's happening right now, that's just undeniable fact. Organisms evolve but what concerns me is the very beginning of life. The very first living organism. Where did that little bastard come from, and how did it come into existence? That's the question. There's obviously biopoiesis, but then there's a lot of ideas of how that first organism came into existence. That little guy is the key to explaining life on Earth, and we'll never find it because it can't possibly exist as it did billions of years ago.

 

[blackjack50]

No thou shalt not kill is not a universal. there are times and instances when killing is deemed acceptable, and even encouraged or praised. Killing in self defense esp. in defense of your family for instance, war (especially defensive), societal and individual views on execution for murderers for another. Circumstances can and do make exceptions where the killing of another is acceptable, so, yes, it is subjective.

The technical translation is: "Thou shalt not murder." Murder and killing are different.

 

[blackjack50]

I don't really see how you can claim you have standards if you are as accepting as you seem to be to the idea of a personal "god."
.

You dodged my question. Everyone has standards. You just wish to belittle mine because I believe in something different. Don't be so arrogant and answer the question. Why are your standards different?

Because there is no evidence that murder is wrong. There is evidence that the world isn't 6000 years old.

There isn't evidence that murder is wrong? Do you think that murder is acceptable then? Or do you think it should not be acceptable? Why? Based on what evidence?

PS: I am not claiming the Earth is 6000 years old. Nobody is. I personally believe the claim to be quite wrong as well. You are simply trying to attack ALL creationists based on one stereotype (the Young Earth people). What about the rest of us? The ones who believe in metaphorical translations? The ones who can reconcile our faith and science? You hate that version of Creationism too?

Doesn't matter if it is a "universal idea in mankind." It's not objective.

Ok. It isn't objective. You can't objectively state that murder is wrong? It doesn't help you that it is pretty much universally accepted that murder is wrong and should be punished? At the very least it is a crime?

Do YOU personally disagree with murder?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

You dodged my question. Everyone has standards. You just wish to belittle mine because I believe in something different. Don't be so arrogant and answer the question. Why are your standards different?

My standards are science-based. Why? Because it's given us great things, like the internet, vaccinations, the internet, space exploration, medicine, the atom bomb, etc.

There isn't evidence that murder is wrong? Do you think that murder is acceptable then? Or do you think it should not be acceptable? Why? Based on what evidence?

Are you using "acceptable" as a form of morally permissible? If so, yes. So do you, I'm thinking. Were you in tears when we killed bin Laden? How about Hitler dying? Do you breakdown whenever anyone in the World is killed? If so, then you must live in a statement of constant sorrow and depression.

PS: I am not claiming the Earth is 6000 years old. Nobody is. I personally believe the claim to be quite wrong as well. You are simply trying to attack ALL creationists based on one stereotype (the Young Earth people). What about the rest of us? The ones who believe in metaphorical translations? The ones who can reconcile our faith and science? You hate that version of Creationism too?

I think you lack evidence, as well. If you metaphorically translate anything, you can justify anything.

Ok. It isn't objective. You can't objectively state that murder is wrong?

Right.

It doesn't help you that it is pretty much universally accepted that murder is wrong and should be punished? At the very least it is a crime?

Nice argument ad populum.

Do YOU personally disagree with murder?

Nope. Again, I'm guessing you don't either. See above about deaths of bin Laden, troops, etc. Also, just to be clear, if I don't disagree with it, that doesn't mean I agree with either. It just is.

 

[blackjack50]

My standards are science-based. Why? Because it's given us great things, like the internet, vaccinations, the internet, space exploration, medicine, the atom bomb, etc.

Your standards are ONLY science based? That is it?

Are you using "acceptable" as a form of morally permissible? If so, yes. So do you, I'm thinking. Were you in tears when we killed bin Laden? How about Hitler dying? Do you breakdown whenever anyone in the World is killed? If so, then you must live in a statement of constant sorrow and depression.

I will allow you to recalculate here. Murder and killing are different. Murder is the unlawful and malicious killing of a fellow human being.

So again I ask: is that wrong? Do you have evidence that says murder is wrong?

I think you lack evidence, as well. If you metaphorically translate anything, you can justify anything

So to you reason, logic, and humanity never enter the equations when it comes to justification? Or are those traits exclusive to the "scientific peoples of atheism?"

PS: You do conceede then that Creationists CAN believe in evolution, the big bang theory, and that I myself am NOT a young earther?

Right

I think I will wait to respond (see above). MURDER cannot objectively be stated as wrong? The killing of a fellow human with malicious intent. How about we replace murder with rape? Is rape objectively wrong?

Nice argument ad populum.

This is beyond ad populum. We are talking virtually every civilization past, present, and future. It has no bearing even if virtually ever society has made murder a crime? Are you saying that YOU know better than the vast majority of people? Or if you were dictator would you make murder illegal as well?

Nope. Again, I'm guessing you don't either. See above about deaths of bin Laden, troops, etc. Also, just to be clear, if I don't disagree with it, that doesn't mean I agree with either. It just is.

We are talking MURDER. I DO have a problem with murder. I DO believe that there are absolute morals. Murder and rape are 2 things that are NEVER permissable. Anyway...

So what do you mean, "it just is?" What about rape? Do you disagree with rape? Or are you neutral?

 

[blackjack50]

To me, creationism is simply the philosophical venture in theorizing the creation of Earth and the life within its atmosphere.

Creationism is a funny thing in that there are many different types of "creationism", but whenever creationism is brought up, people instantly think of young earth creationists. Those people cannot be taken seriously, since the whole basis of YEC is based on half-assed pseudotheology. I can understand the metaphorical point of view based on the Book of Genesis, it's actually pretty interesting to me, and some of what's written, when taken metaphorically, does kind of correlate with how the formation of Earth may have occurred. I just don't believe that it's factual in any way.

I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, but I do believe the Theory of Evolution as the explanation of how we are what we are today. Evolution did happen, it's still happening, it's happening right now, that's just undeniable fact. Organisms evolve but what concerns me is the very beginning of life. The very first living organism. Where did that little bastard come from, and how did it come into existence? That's the question. There's obviously biopoiesis, but then there's a lot of ideas of how that first organism came into existence. That little guy is the key to explaining life on Earth, and we'll never find it because it can't possibly exist as it did billions of years ago.

I understand that. I think I would venture farther into this topic and say that I could accept a Big Bang theory as well. Nothing really "kills" my idea that God exists. I have seen too many wonderful things in my life to believe otherwise. I think that is something that certain people can't grasp. I don't care about the "answer" to the God question. I don't need some kind of proof. The "proof" matters as much to me as does my shoe size to them. It offers me nothing, like my foot size gives them nothing. I already know God exists. I honestly believe that is the biggest problem. Not can I reconcile my faith and Science, but can THEY reconcile my faith without science? Some? Sure...others clearly not.