PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Scientific Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know, I don't really have an arguement with those creationists who simply say "no matter what the evidence says, I have faith God created everything in 6 days....".  We'll never agree, I'll probably never be able to shake their faith with any evidence and their faith will never convince me the evidence for evolution and a billions of years old universe is wrong.  
So this post is just to those creationists that claim to have scientific evidence for a young earth, 6 day creation, Noah's flood, animals discretely created, etc.
I say there is no real evidence for any of these claims.  Every arguement in defense of YEC creationism has been disproven.  So any one who has anything new to bring to the table, let's discuss it!  I'm talking about real, hard, empirical evidence and if it really does support YEC creationism I'll be the first one to admit it.  But be warned, I've seen a lot of crap passed off as proof and nothing any creationist has presented has impressed me so far.  So bring it on and let's have a debate!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:23 AM on January 28, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent point Demon38, I couldn't agree more. The problem is that to many creationalist come to these forums with simply no intention of ever accepting evolution. So why are you here! If you come to spread the word of god you've come to the wrong place. I've never met or heard of an true evolutionist converting to the likes of creationalism.
                                        Dave
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:07 PM on February 10, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've seen an agnostic convert to Christianity, but not to creationism.

The mistake is to delude yourself to thinking that they are the same.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:23 PM on February 10, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It happens a lot more than you think.

Dr. Gary Parker's Conversion from Evolutionist & Secondary Biology Teacher to Creationist

He was a die-hard evolutionist who went into the field of biology.  He actually taught evolution at a college.  When he went for his doctorate degree, he met some creationists and the combination of his doctorate studies and his friendships with these creationists changed his mind.  He now travels with Ken Hamm and the AiG group doing conferences and such.  I orderd the DVD and watched it... it was pretty compelling.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:08 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And has since been responsible for quite a bit of creationist nonsense.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:33 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Eccentricity

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The thing that I find interesting about this particular part of Creationism is that it assumes the Bible is absolutely, completely correct.  Actually, it comes up in more than just Creationism, this faith in a text that has been translated and re-translated...the thing that everyone seems to forget is that the entire Bible, from beginning to end, was written by men.  Mortals.  Who are fallible, and can be wrong easily.

It's not a matter of finding proof that God made all of Creation in seven days or whatever, it's a matter of accepting that the Bible is not necissarily a good resource for specifics pertaining to science!
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:37 AM on November 5, 2004 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've got an article on "scientific creationism" here and, as I'm sure you can tell, all sites like AiG, ICR and soforth's apologetics can be equally applied to it, and back it up. It's a good example of how they use pseudoscience and ad hoc interpretation.


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:36 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 05:23 AM on January 28, 2004 :
You know, I don't really have an arguement with those creationists who simply say "no matter what the evidence says, I have faith God created everything in 6 days....".  We'll never agree, I'll probably never be able to shake their faith with any evidence and their faith will never convince me the evidence for evolution and a billions of years old universe is wrong.  
So this post is just to those creationists that claim to have scientific evidence for a young earth, 6 day creation, Noah's flood, animals discretely created, etc.
I say there is no real evidence for any of these claims.  Every arguement in defense of YEC creationism has been disproven.  So any one who has anything new to bring to the table, let's discuss it!  I'm talking about real, hard, empirical evidence and if it really does support YEC creationism I'll be the first one to admit it.  But be warned, I've seen a lot of crap passed off as proof and nothing any creationist has presented has impressed me so far.  So bring it on and let's have a debate!


What do you wish to debate? There is evidence. You interpret it according to your pre-supposition , I interpret it according to mine.
Anyone who believes there is a smoking gun is mistaken. either you know this and are setting up a strawman argument for newbies or you are misinformed yourself.
There is hard evidence, fossils are hard , rocks are hard, is that the hard evidence you mean?
Certainly the Cambrian explosionseem to  fit the Creation view best .
The astronomical evidence seems to support evolution.
What are you looking for? There is no smoking gun on either side.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:02 PM on April 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 4:07 PM on February 10, 2004 :
Excellent point Demon38, I couldn't agree more. The problem is that to many creationalist come to these forums with simply no intention of ever accepting evolution. So why are you here! If you come to spread the word of god you've come to the wrong place. I've never met or heard of an true evolutionist converting to the likes of creationalism.
                                        Dave

I guess I could ask you the same question.
If you had heard of one then what?
I will give you one although it won't matter to you.
Dr. Mark Eastman
Now you can't say that anymore, well and mean it.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:14 PM on April 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yod Heh Vav Heh at 10:36 PM on January 11, 2005 :
I've got an article on "scientific creationism" here and, as I'm sure you can tell, all sites like AiG, ICR and soforth's apologetics can be equally applied to it, and back it up. It's a good example of how they use pseudoscience and ad hoc interpretation.

Your link is to an atheist website.
Try answers in Genesis or the Creation Science Institute .
I know you wish to be fair.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:30 PM on April 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Eccentricity at 12:37 AM on November 5, 2004 :
The thing that I find interesting about this particular part of Creationism is that it assumes the Bible is absolutely, completely correct.  Actually, it comes up in more than just Creationism, this faith in a text that has been translated and re-translated...the thing that everyone seems to forget is that the entire Bible, from beginning to end, was written by men.  Mortals.  Who are fallible, and can be wrong easily.

It's not a matter of finding proof that God made all of Creation in seven days or whatever, it's a matter of accepting that the Bible is not necissarily a good resource for specifics pertaining to science!


anyone can say anything. Where is the Bible incorrect or mistranslated? Where is your evidence to back this up?
It is not a science book per se but where is it wrong about science? Other than it conflicts with you interpretation of the evidence.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:35 PM on April 3, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hahhah peddler8111 got you guys good.  

But anyway to write something.  The problem with asking for cold hard empirical evidence is that it can only trace back so far.  Since the Big Bang is still a theory, then can you give me hard evidence that it actually happenned?  And if not, explain how we came to be.  And I don't want non of that "chance" argument.  Because if we got here by chance, how does chance constitute for the rest of the the universe?  

Do not mistake science as a something that disproves the notion of creation.  Look deeper into physics and find that the order of the world is being held together by some force that is not provable.




-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 03:04 AM on April 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from got_dooie at 03:04 AM on April 4, 2005 :
hahhah peddler8111 got you guys good.  

But anyway to write something.  The problem with asking for cold hard empirical evidence is that it can only trace back so far.  Since the Big Bang is still a theory, then can you give me hard evidence that it actually happenned?  And if not, explain how we came to be.  And I don't want non of that "chance" argument.  Because if we got here by chance, how does chance constitute for the rest of the the universe?  

Do not mistake science as a something that disproves the notion of creation.  Look deeper into physics and find that the order of the world is being held together by some force that is not provable.





It is naive to think there is a smoking gun.
There are only 2 possibilities. Genesis is true or evolution origin theory is true.
Genesis is a historical record in the best documented book in antiquity, much better documented than say Homer's Illiad.
You can choose to believe it or no.
It fits the evidence.
There is no smoking gun that disproves it. One can interpret the available evidence and say it seems unlikely to them.
Evolution is a fact living things change over time. That is observed. Reptiles turning into birds is pure imagination. Media hype being the best evidence for it.
The basis of atheistic evolution is spontaneous generation-you can call it what you will, abiogenesis,or whatever. Before you say my use of the word is incorrect read about Huxley and Pastuer. Also check Merriam Websters Medical Dictionary.
For spontaneous generation to occur without the intervention of a supernatural being requires matter to create intelligence.
I find this absurd.
Regardless if it is rats springing to life from grain or chemicals that formed by incredible chance suddenly becoming a living cell.
You can believe it if you want but it is not science.
Creationist get overly excited when thy find there is scientific evidence that supports their view and think they can change someones mind . The best one can hope for it to get someone to think for themselves and start asking questions. At that point they may have a chance to spread the gospel.
They are no less naive than someone who believes the origin theory of evolution is a proven fact. Science rarely proves anything and in the last 150 years it has become so intellectually dishonest it rarely admits what it has disproved.
Think about this. Evolution has fabricated evidence as far back as Haeckel. Haeckel's embryo's are still in the textbooks. They were admited to be frauds by Haeckel himself in 1870. Think about this , does this create confidence in the educational system that helped from your opinion?
Over 200 Doctoral thesis were writtten about the Piltdown Man, and you trust the educational system that helped form you opinion?
These frauds continue with National Geographics Piltdown Bird and the recent dating diaster.
And you trust without question the theory?
Is that logical?
I suggest you read the book Bones of Contention. Using your own logical mind , is it not reasonable to assume that the same group of people that manufacture evidence to prove their theory would not resort to suppressing evidence that contradicted it?
If there is a smoking gun it is the overwhelming evidence that man has been around as long or longer than any of his supposed ancestors.
If you really are interested in truth you should study these things.
Read Leakeys book. Ask yourself if she really believes that displaying her collection of bones in America is unthinkable out of fear a Creationist will detonate himsel to destroy the smoking gun evidence of evolution.That is ludicrus.
If you think evidence speaks for itself read the back of Leakey's book. It states the 400 million year old prints are exactly like modern human footprints , if we did not know the silt was 400ma we would say humans made them.
This is called circular reasoning and it is a major part of the basis for everything you believe in so strongly.
If you think academia gave you the facts and let you decide for yourself consider that many textbooks have drawings of these footprints that would make Haeckel proud.
It portrays bipedal apes leaving apelike footprints-the big toe seperation and all.
Many museaums have similar displays-they are more dishonest than Leakey herself, quite an accomplishment.
If you don't question every detail you are given considering the fabrications you are aware of you are more naive than the Creationists that think they have a smoking gun.
BTW Next time you try to play a practical joke make sure the link works. I had to change it to get it to work. On the first page it obvious what it was. Heck the link told me that.
I appreciate the effort as a sense of humor is so rare among evolutionist.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 07:53 AM on April 4, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

tbh I can't be arsed to reply to this post atm, but I felt that one thing had to be said

[random] The astronomical evidence seems to support evolution.[random]

if by that you mean space and not astronomical in terms of large amounts, then you are wrong! Evolution is not concerned with space or how life came to be, evelution is simpily to do with the change of life and is a theory explaining the diversity of life. Alot of people get this wrong, evelution has nothing to do with the origins of life or the origins of the planet or universe.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 12:51 PM on April 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 12:51 PM on April 4, 2005 :
tbh I can't be arsed to reply to this post atm, but I felt that one thing had to be said

[random] The astronomical evidence seems to support evolution.[random]

if by that you mean space and not astronomical in terms of large amounts, then you are wrong! Evolution is not concerned with space or how life came to be, evelution is simpily to do with the change of life and is a theory explaining the diversity of life. Alot of people get this wrong, evelution has nothing to do with the origins of life or the origins of the planet or universe.


No it has everything to do with astronomy, geology , biology and quite a few others.
With out billions of years the theory is worthless.
Nothing cannot evolve.
Darwin never talked about origins for political reasons.
Lots of evolutionist say origins don't matter because they cannot support the adsurd notion that matter generated intelligence.
If you refuse to discuss origins you are afraid and unwilling to support your theory.
You lose by default.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:19 PM on April 4, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No you are wrong, astronomical devlopment IS required for evolution to take place but it a differnt theory all together, so is the theory of the origins of life, evolution is a theory to explain the diversity of life not how it started.

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.

The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.


The only definition that refers to actual evolution is the biological (number 3) read it as many times as you want, no mention to the origin of life. Its a common mistake don't worry.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:52 AM on April 5, 2005 | IP
pasha

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all evolution is happenign every singe day, even as you sit in your chair right now. Many people ask 'if evolution is true then why isn't it happening today?"
One example is of Thomas Hunt Morgan's fruit flies, in 1909 he had only one species of fruit flies the "wild type"(all had red eyes) which showed no variants in it and after isolating a  population of the wild type and breeding them for a year he found one variant, a fruit fly with white eyes. after a short time period he found other mutations(SLIGHLY different from other fruit flies, genetically), 85 mutations to be more precice, and the genes of these fruit flies were passed from generation to generation(they will alway exist and may or may not be expressed in their children). Mutations are occurences that happen in nature and over a long period of time give rise to new species.  To put it in simpler and more coherent words, " The demonstration of a spontaneous, inheritable alteration in a gene had consequences far beyond the study of drosphilia(fruit fly) genetics. It suggested a mechanism for the origin of VARIATION that exists within POPULATIONS(such as humans, mice, flies, bacteria and even viruses)--evidence for a vital link in the theory of evolution. If VARIANTS of genes could arise spontaneously, then isolated populations could become GENETICALLY DIFFERENT from one another und ULTIMATELY(SOmetimes in millions of years) give rise to new species."(Cell and Molecular Biology. Gerald Karp. Fourth Edition)
Fruit flies mature in 10 days(to a sexually mature adult)and a fruit fly can produce 1000 eggs withing a lifetime, thats why, with such a population that lives, breeds and dies so quickly, variations can be followed VERY precisely(in the example a bove it took one year to find 85 mutations). Ladies and gentleman, in the following sentce I present to you evolution in all its glory: If enough of these mutations happen within a fruit fly population you can produce a new strain of fruit flies(that look different) that won't even be able to breed and produce offspring with the original fruit flies(wild type) but only with the new strain! Hence, a NEW SPECIES now exists. For mammals such as apes or whales etc. such changes are not as obvious(because we live on average 70-100 years and  produce a few offspring compared to fruit flies!) and the most remarkable or striking evidence of  change come from skeletons of early humans or for early whales(check out the evolution line for whales, its pretty amazing to know what anymal they evolved from).
By the way, fruit fly reaserch is IMMENSE today compared to 1909 and so is reaserch on other animals, so check out some papers or articles online about evolution in progress, evolution is a lot more complex than what I have explained here, I just gave you a run down of the basics. If you are wondering yes, there is an explenation of how and why mutations occur, but understanding these explenation will mean taking university biology, genetics and chemistry courses.

If you want an up to date example of evolution happening everyday(other than some guys' fruit flies in 1909) then let me tell you, it would be impossible to keep AIDS patiens alive today without knowing the theory of evolution. AIDS patients take alot of drugs wich help kill the AIDS virus, but the virus keeps adapting to drugs and ultimately becomes resistant to it, how? The virus EVOLVES!!! Lets say there is a certain virus living in your body, most of the viruses that are in your body are identical copies of one another and a few mutations(variations) of the same virus exist within that population. One drug may kill off a large population of the virus that exists in your body but might not kill, lets say 1%, of of the HIV virus. This 1% is resistand to a certain drug and thus replicates numerously and once again causes infection now we have a new population of the the HIV virus, but its resistand to one type of drug(and genetically different) so you can't use it anymore. If you try another drug, the same thing will happen, a small percentage of varients will survive and give rise to a new, drug resistand virus.

 Some people believe that evolution dictates superiority and inferiority different creatures. That is not true, according to evolution a human being is no more up the ladder than an elephant or a kangaroo, all three of these species are equally complex(biologically). The only thing that seperates us is that we are probably one of of the few species that can interact with each other, we have complex brain(allowing language, which gives us an advantage over other animals) and modify matter around us(Me..made...FIRE!)and we have a complex social structure. All in all, we are still animals, like it or not, you gotta eat, sleep, when its a hot day you will sweat, you have red blood running through your veins(hopefully) like other mammals and most importanly most of us will pass on our genes to propagate the human race, no matter what.
I read in an earlier post something that I find interesting. Anyone who proves that evolutionary theory if fundamentaly flawed, will DEFNINETELY win the nobel prize! If evolution if flawed, so is modern genetics, if thats flawed then so is basic chemistry, if thats flawed, so is modern physics, if thats flawed, so is mathematics!!

Evolution is also about natural selection, Hypothetically: If the earth was scorched today and if the seas would boil(for some reason), 99.999 percent of creatures would die, including all people, the only things left alive would be thermophiles(heat loving bacteria) and the would "win" the race to survival because they would survive to pass on their genes whereas the rest of us would be floating dust.  The modern evolutionary theory is complex, very complex and its based on facts, it is something that you have to study in University before you can comprehend(high school stuff, barely SCRATHCES the surface and in my opinion its inadequately taught in the class room, it should be taught more coherently so that student can understand what it is) you cant pass judgement on it based on preconceptions, modern medicine wouldn't be where it is today and ironically, without the theory of evolution most of you(I am sure) wouldn't be here debating!

 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 1:09 PM on April 10, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.