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
     Evolution- whats the problem?
       Why does this branch of science get people so fired up?

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

    
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Greetings all

Well, the question is in the title, not much more to add.

Why does the theory of Evolution spark such controversy in people?

What in particular is wrong/offensive/inaccurate with the concepts that it proposes, i.e. that life on Earth has changed over the history of the planet in response to various factors and pressures?

So lets have your opinions please... but make sure they are your own.

Cheers


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 9:58 PM on March 30, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You haven't heard? As you have probably seen, evolution is not the big problem, its the absence of creation. Besides, as TQ and Demon38 have pointed out, us creationists are just "scientifically illiterate, pathetic, ignorant, laughable, and we must not forget saddening."

Cheers,
Toad


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 09:07 AM on March 31, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

scientifically illiterate-check
pathetic-"I'm right and you're going to hell!! But I love you" check
ignorant- what would you call making arguments that were refuted decades ago? Check this one too.
laghable-hey, I chuckle at it. Check
saddening- I know it saddens me to think there are people so uneducated that they would believe the creationist charlatans like Hovind.  Doesn't it sadden you? Oh, and check


-------
"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: 1:04 PM on March 31, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most Christians have no trouble seeing the wonders all around them and accepting the findings of modern science as confirming of creation.

It's Fundamentalists as opposed to Christians who have a problem with modern science, in the context of their concept of "biblical inerrancy".  Interestingly enough, the founders of the modern Fundamentalist movement Warfield and Hodges did not hold to nearly such a strict interpretation of "inerrancy" as we see today, and accepted an old age for the earth, as revealed by numerous Christian scientists such as Sedgewick.

Because the Fundamentalists have such an all or nothing approach to interpretation, any outside information that tends to cast doubt on their particular view raises their defense mechanisms.  For them, since they have been convinced that accepting the findings of modern science means sliding down the "slippery slope", of -- GASP --, a different interpretation.  It takes little time watching boards like this to find statements such as:
You can not pick and choose what you believe in the bible. Its either God's word and you have faith in it or you compromise and wallow blindly in unbelief.


(Edited by Apoapsis 4/1/2004 at 09:46 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:18 PM on March 31, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you for the replies... I have couple of responses for you to consider:

Young Earth Toad:

So, let me put a question to you: you do not see anything incorrect with the science, as long as it is considered in the context of a Universe created by a [Christian] God? (not to assume your Relgion).


Aposis:

I agree that most Christians have no trouble accepting (although often with a caveat or two ) the findings of science as an explaination of how a created Universe has come to the point it is at today.

I also notice however a lack of understanding of such science also leads some Christians into accepting the debunking that is (sadly) practiced by many Literal Creationsists, Intelligent Designs advocates etc... in effect they are denied the opportunity to make their own minds up regarding the validity of a scientific explaination of the Universe.


More opinions are most welcome... why is Evolution (and other branches of science indicating an aged Earth and Universe) so objectionable?

(Edited by OccamsRazor 3/31/2004 at 10:00 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 9:58 PM on March 31, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's remarkable how quickly creationists are ready to jump on the ID bandwagon, without realizing that it means accepting common descent.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:49 AM on April 1, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OccamsRazor: So, let me put a question to you: you do not see anything incorrect with the science, as long as it is considered in the context of a Universe created by a [Christian] God? (not to assume your Relgion).

That depends on what you are referring to as science. Evolution, by definition, is the change in a population over time. I would be stupid to deny that this occurs. We observe this all the time, so no, I do not disagree with that. I do believe that and Intelligent God (of the Bible) created the universe, contrary to the Big Bang.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 10:49 AM on April 3, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do believe that and Intelligent God (of the Bible) created the universe, contrary to the Big Bang.
You do realize the ToE nothing to do with the origin of the universe, right?  What you just stated is that you agree with the ToE, but disagree with some cosmological ideas about the origin of the universe


-------
"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: 2:38 PM on April 3, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thankyou for your reply, Young Earth Toad. From your answer, I take it you would not consider the Big Bang (or other potential explainations of the origin of universe) as a mechanism by which God brought the universe into being?

Or would you consider that the world/universe was created by a process outside of the observable?


TQ: Behe certainly started something rolling with his writings on intelligent design and irreducable complexity. I think his line of reasoning is, in the very least, clever and quite persuasive.

It is interesting how the ideas of Behe gained such prominence, given his field of expertise (Biochemistry) and his topic of reference (Evolution).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:49 PM on April 4, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with Behe is his ideas are only persuasive if you don't understand evolution.  Every example of "irreducible complexity" that he brought forth is quite adequately explained by evolution.  Search for Behe on www.talkorigins.org  and you will see that his arguments actually hold very little water


-------
"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: 2:10 PM on April 5, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For those who don't know what or who Behe is - visit here:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/evolve_irreducible.html

On that page it lists a scenario.  It starts out - "Let us imagine a species. Each animal has a workable biochemical system that just has component A. Then a mutation in one animal causes component B. B happens to make the system work better. B is optional, but it's valuable to the individual who contains this improved system. Darwinian natural selection will tend to spread the improvement, until eventually every member of the species inherits it. Now every copy of the biochemical system uses both A and B. "

Here already we see the fundamental flaw in evolutionary theory.  Mutation is defined as a loss or re-arrangement of genetic information.  It is NEVER additive to genetic information.  Even if a mutation appears advantageous to a species, it is always a trend towards de-evolution or loss of genetic information.  

In reality, the species in the example would have to already have DNA for components A B and C.  A loss or re-arrangement of genetic material (aka Mutation) could expose the presence of a trait, but it is impossible for mutation to add any new genetic information.

This is one reason why evolution is impossible.

I am a christian.  I believe that science and the Bible go hand in hand.  Science confirms the Bible to be true.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 03:02 AM on April 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

same old nonsense. again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

so, I guess you're wrong.  You can retract your statement now, or prove my stereotype of creationists

(Edited by admin 4/6/2004 at 2:33 PM).


-------
"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: 2:13 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In answer to the original question "What's the problem with evolution?", here's my theory.

God, or the Gods if you go back to pantheistic times, have generally been the God of the Unknown.  Any time someone asked one of the Big Questions, rather than just say "I don't know, yet" the answer would be "Must be God".  Where does lightning come from?  Zeus, smiting someone.  Why do the crops grow?  Demeter is happy.  Why am I having bad luck?  You must have offeneded Loki.  And so on, you get the idea.  As people advanced in thought and more answers were found, or at least it became apparent that there might be more plausible answers than "It's the will of Vulcan" these Gods lost followers.

These days there are only a few Big Questions left.  Where do we come from?  Why are we here?  What happens when we die?  What do bad things happen to good people?  You will note that these are all questions that you local fundamentalist church will be more than happy to answer with "God!"  You may also note that evolution takes big strides in answering the first two questions.  If you undermine people's faith in God the creator, you're left with a God of death and bad luck, and that's hardly going to fill the pews come Sunday.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 9:31 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow - God of the unknown.

Well my Bible actually goes back to the very beginning - when the world and universe were created.

God walked and talked with the first man, Adam until Sin and death entered the world through Adam's disobedience.  

Interesting that the same God who created the universe answered all those Big Questions in the Bible definitively with the 'correct' answer.  

Kronus quote:  "You will note that these are all questions that you local fundamentalist church will be more than happy to answer with "God!"  

OOO!!  Special K pulling out the big sterotypical 'fundamentalist' word again.  


Where do we come from?

Your parents made mad love and 9 months your mother sqeezed you out of her uterus.  Do that for 150 generations or so and you get back to Adam.  Adam was created on day 6 of the creation of the universe.  


Why are we here?

To glorify God.  Also, as training for we are to rule and reign with him for eternity.  

Adam and Eve were originally in the Garden of Eden to spend time with God, having and maintaining His rule and Dominion over his creation.  We are, essentially, stewards of his creation.  Adam, however, forfeitted his right to this when he disobeyed God and sin & death are the result.  But God made a way for restoration through his Son, Jesus.  So that, now, we can be companions and stewards as it was in the beginning.  

By this, we can clearly see that 'science' is an implied mandate from God.  


What happens when we die?

Those who die having not accepted the redemption God offered in Jesus christ will remain under the rule and domain of Satan in hell for eternity.  Those who accept salvation will rule and reign with God in a new heaven and new earth.  Which would refer back to the whole companion deal.  He's benevolent and giving...He's a giver....so He created us to be able to show Himself to us.  That we would be able to enjoy His splendor for eternity.  But he is ultimately just as well.  It is our choice - life or death, blessing or cursing.  

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

God doesn't say things 'co-incidentally'.  There is a reason it says "call heaven and earth to record".  


What do bad things happen to good people?

I assume you mean WHY.  
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Because of Adam's sin, he gave 'rule' over this world to Satan.  This rule was originally and rightfully man's.  

Jhn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Why do bad things happen to good people?  - Jesus said  "Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly. "
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:30 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tell me Gup, would you prefer we went back to the dark ages when the church forbid people to study the way the world worked?


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 7:55 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, yes, of course he would.  If you don't blindly agree with his particular interpretation of the Bible, you're going to hell.  Hell is bad.  Studying the way the world works may lead you to question his interpretation of the Bible.  Therefore, studying the way the world works is bad.

The trully sad part about this is that I'm not being sarcastic or exagerating.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 8:17 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
valet_dave

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi all,

I think evolution sparks so much controversy amongst religious folk simply because it is such a valid threat to their belief structure.  While many have tried to incorporate evolutional theory into their religious philosophy, the foundation of evolution cannot be rationally attributed to the “hand of god”.

As science has continually progressed and provided explanations and descriptions of various phenomena, many theories are eventually proven (or disproven) beyond doubt.

It is foreseeable that in the future, there will be new proof that is undeniable, even to the religious public (although many of us would agree we already have enough information to make a reliable conclusion), which will force them to face their fear that there is no life after death.

Regards,
Dave



-------
Life BEFORE death. You know it makes sense.
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 8:48 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

VOID: Tell me Gup, would you prefer we went back to the dark ages when the church forbid people to study the way the world worked?

Compared to Humanist Evolutionists forbidding people to study the way the world works today?

The 'church' did very wrong in the past (referring to the state of the Catholic chuch in medievil times).  The idea the Bible promotes is that every person needs the freedom to choose forthemselves whether to believe.  The USA was founded on these principles of freedom.   It is the best atmosphere to promote Christianity (an atmosphere of religious freedom).  

Studying the way the world works may lead you to question his interpretation of the Bible.  Therefore, studying the way the world works is bad.

The trully sad part about this is that I'm not being sarcastic or exagerating.


So you truely believe that studying the way the world works is bad?

Kronus: Well, yes, of course he would.  ... The trully sad part about this is that I'm not being sarcastic or exagerating.[/

Now you are a mind reader?  You are being foolish.  

Kronus:  If you don't blindly agree with his particular interpretation of the Bible, you're going to hell.

Blind agreement is pure religion - religion will not get you into heaven.  Even christian religion will not get you into heaven.  

Let me remind you -


Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.


valet_dave: It is foreseeable that in the future, there will be new proof that is undeniable, even to the religious public (although many of us would agree we already have enough information to make a reliable conclusion), which will force them to face their fear that there is no life after death.

Hello, and welcome to the discussion.  I have not seen you post before.

In actuality, creationism is stronger now than it has ever been.  In fact, many long held ideas of the evolutionary paradigm are quickly falling by the wayside as creation science continually pokes holes in The Theory of Evolution.  Like many evolutionists (most of which think creationism died 200 years ago) it sounds like you have ignored that.  And should we blame you?  Since the Scopes trial, creationism has been all but completely censored in publiic education.  You come here only knowing one side of a two sided argument.  It is interesting how just about every bit of 'evidence' used to kick creationism out of public education has since been refuted, and is no longer accepted, even by evolutionists (such as piltdown man).  

In fact, students are taught evolution as fact in the public education system, even though there is sufficent evidence to make creation not only possible, but plausible.  But this is categorically excluded because of the intrinsicly humanistic nature of evoltionary thought.  

For example - were you ever taught that there may be ANY other plausible theories besides evolution in school?  If so, what did you learn?






 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:38 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In actuality, creationism is stronger now than it has ever been.  In fact, many long held ideas of the evolutionary paradigm are quickly falling by the wayside as creation science continually pokes holes in The Theory of Evolution.

And yet he can't come up with an actual example of this.  Strange, isn't it?
Since the Scopes trial, creationism has been all but completely censored in publiic education.

As religion should be
You come here only knowing one side of a two sided argument.

Anyone else notice how creationists always assume that those who don't agree with them are totally ignorant as to the subject matter of creationism?
It is interesting how just about every bit of 'evidence' used to kick creationism out of public education has since been refuted, and is no longer accepted, even by evolutionists (such as piltdown man).  

Anyone else also notice that creationists are the only ones who mention Piltdown Man?  But they never seem to mention the fact that it was discredited 60 years ago, by science, and that it had been relegated to the "dubious" bin about 30 years before that because it didn't make any sense?
In fact, students are taught evolution as fact in the public education system,

Because it is as much a fact as any other scientific theory.
even though there is sufficent evidence to make creation not only possible, but plausible.

So are you saving this earth-shattering evidence for a rainy day or what?  All you've posted so far are lies, misconceptions and ignorance, with the occasional bible verse thrown in for amusement.
For example - were you ever taught that there may be ANY other plausible theories besides evolution in school?

No.  Do you know any?  I'd be interested to see them!


-------
"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: 03:06 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ wrote: The problem with Behe is his ideas are only persuasive if you don't understand evolution.  Every example of "irreducible complexity" that he brought forth is quite adequately explained by evolution.  Search for Behe on www.talkorigins.org  and you will see that his arguments actually hold very little water


I very much agree! however the understanding Evolution bit is the crux of the issue. Quite simply alot of people don't. As long as such a situation persists, the Behe's of this world will come along and create quixotic "science" to, at best, try explain away solid understanding and, at worst, present half-truths in a manner that will be unquestioned and taken as read by large numbers of people.

I suppose Behe is a classic example of someone talking outside of their field, relying on a professional repuation built in a different area to carry the weight of their personal opinions in their pet projects. Pity the field of Evolution seems to attract such a large number of these "contributors"  


Kronus: yes very persuasive, the unknown and unquantified is fertile ground for offering an explaination based upon faith alone.

valet_dave: yes, Evolution is the latest (and most fundemental so far) challenge to a literally held belief (read moral authority) within Christian churches.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 8:53 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
valet_dave

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, I was given religious instruction in school long before any evolutionary or scientific theories were presented.  I guess that follows the "Get 'em while they are young" mentality!  Parents were required to give permission to attend the classes in both cases.  I remember several students with strong religious convictions did not attend the science lectures.

I agree that individuals should be given all the information so they can make a balanced decision.  Although I guess it's impossible to provide a balance of information due to the number of religious philosophies in circulation. Fortunately, there isn't as much diversity in science, due to the level of proof required.  I have to admit that I did find it amusing that people didn't want to subject their children to the "brain washing" from science teachers.  It's certainly an encouraging development.

I'm not sure about creationism being stronger than ever, I doubt that is the case in my country.  I guess if you are referring to census data, then it is true that there are still many people claiming to hold a particular belief.   Here's a related article from a national newspaper:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/09/1078594360739.html?from=storyrhs

It has been openly reported by churches in Australia that they are seeing less and less people in attendance.  While churches claim it's because people lead busier lives, there has been a growing chorus of people that are claiming church is less relevant and is even out of touch with today's society.  This combined with the controversy surrounding the churches handling of sexual misconduct charges only reinforces the predicament.

Dave


-------
Life BEFORE death. You know it makes sense.
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 9:38 PM on May 2, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from valet_dave at 9:38 PM on May 2, 2004 :
While churches claim it's because people lead busier lives, there has been a growing chorus of people that are claiming church is less relevant and is even out of touch with today's society


I think what we're seeing is a drift away from religion towards spirituality.  That is, people believe, suspect, or at the very least, don't deny, the existance some higher being, but they see no reason to believe that the priest down the street has any more of a lock on what that may be than they do.  And so, spirituality of the pub.  People getting together to discuss what they think and believe without the dogma of a church getting in the way.  Frankly, if there is a God out there, and s/he does care what we think, I'd have to assume that s/he would rather we put some effort into figuring things out for ourselves, rather than just blindly following some doctrine someone presented to us by someone with no more claim to the truth than we have.

 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:20 PM on May 2, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: And yet he can't come up with an actual example of this.  Strange, isn't it?

Perhaps you are right.  Perhaps I should qualify that.  Creation Science is stronger now than it has been in the last century.  For example - look at the Scopes trial.  Here you have a many rudimentary questions about creation that 'creationists' of the day were unable to answer.  Today, however, all of those questions are more can be answered.  

It is important however to adjust my remarks for 'strong than ever' to strongest it's been in a century because creation science was at it's strongest in the days of Newton, Boyle, and Galileo.

TQ: Anyone else notice how creationists always assume that those who don't agree with them are totally ignorant as to the subject matter of creationism?

I have not needed to make any assumptions, TQ.  You stated quite prominantly that creation was disproven 200 years ago.  You have also DEMONSTRATED a very vague notion of what creationists believe.  For example - look at the many points you have brough up and I have responded to.  In almost every instance you either didn't know what the creationist view was, or had some extremely skewed notion (which you may have read from talk origins or some else).  

TQ: Anyone else also notice that creationists are the only ones who mention Piltdown Man?  But they never seem to mention the fact that it was discredited 60 years ago, by science, and that it had been relegated to the "dubious" bin about 30 years before that because it didn't make any sense?

I use that as an example because it is one that everyone is aware of.  Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Archaeoraptor.  Part of the Scopes trial was also to try to make a mockery out of the creation science of the day.  They asked questions in the trial such as "How old is the earth?" "Did everyone outside the Ark die in the Flood? If so, what about the fish?" "Where did Cain get his wife?" "How did the snake walk—on its tail?"  This was used as propaganda against creationism.  While all of these questions can be answered today by creationists, the ones that were questioned in the Scopes trial had no answers.  

It is interesting, also that you claim that creationists never mention how 'science' discredited piltdown as a hoax.  Well, I have news for you - creationists were calling it a hoax long before the 'almighty science' got around to figuring it out.  It was only though pressure by creationists that it was ever determined to be a hoax.  Once evolution scientists actually studied piltdown, they found it to be an OBVIOUS hoax.  So the question is - how did such an obvious hoax last so long?

TQ: Because it is as much a fact as any other scientific theory.

And yet it is the ONLY scientific theory taught in schools.  How about Intelligent Design?  That seems to be far more logical than Evolution, and it has no theistic influence.  Why is that not taught in public schools?  If it is as much fact as evolution why is it not taught?  Or creationism - why is that not taught.  Saying God is not supporting a religion... the courts have repeatedly affirmed this.  Why can't we do as the epicurians did and label Him as 'the unknown God'?  Because currently the religion of humanism reigns supreme in America.  

Valet_Dave:  I agree that individuals should be given all the information so they can make a balanced decision.

This hasn't happened in public schools or universities for a very long time.  It used to - in actuality, the vast majority of the most prestigous schools in America started as Christian Schools (such as Harvard).  

It certainly should happen.

Kronus:  People getting together to discuss what they think and believe without the dogma of a church getting in the way.  Frankly, if there is a God out there, and s/he does care what we think, I'd have to assume that s/he would rather we put some effort into figuring things out for ourselves, rather than just blindly following some doctrine someone presented to us by someone with no more claim to the truth than we have.

Therein lies a major problem with the 'church' today (especially the Catholic church).  There is so much dogma in the way of truely following scripture.  The Bible has always maintained that christianity is a personal relationship - a personal path to follow.  For one to take that journey they need #1 freedom to choose and #2 to study it for themselves.  The USA has christian churches everywhere full of people who either only go becuase their parents went and it's all they know, or because they believed some vague notion of heaven or hell as a child, and their hoping that this sunday morning duty/ritual will be all it takes to get them into heaven.  I would venture to say that for most christians, it is a religious activity - nothing more.  And this is what people see and percieve.  

There are those, however, who fervently love the Lord  and seek after him for themselves (as the Bible instructs).  Those who do strive to develope their own relationship with God.  These people do not practice religious christianity (as most do), but they practice christian spirituality.  

Christianity was never meant to be a dead religious ritual.  It was, and is meant to be a living relationship with a living God.  Therein lies the greatest misunderstanding of christianity that exists in the world today - and I would venture to say that the vast majority of evolutionists have no concept of what I am talking about.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:04 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I have news for you - creationists were calling it a hoax long before the 'almighty science' got around to figuring it out.


Many well known fossils (eg archaeopteryx, homo erectus, even neanderthal) have been called a hoax by some creationists at some time or other. One correct guess at piltdown man hardly counters the many incorrect guesses.

That [Intelligent Design] seems to be far more logical than Evolution, and it has no theistic influence

Intelligent design is a philosophical idea. It is an untestable conjecture such as "our universe is a computer simulation". Yes we can look at both and say they sound reasonable, could very well be true, but that isn't enough to make them science.

Science requires ideas to explain observations. Intelligent Design is a conclusion, it offers no testable explainations of observations such as the fossil record or species genomes.
Simply attacking evolution is not good enough. Intelligent Design must present a model that is better than evolution's model at predicting future fossil finds and future genetic finds.

 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 12:48 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is important however to adjust my remarks for 'strong than ever' to strongest it's been in a century because creation science was at it's strongest in the days of Newton, Boyle, and Galileo.

Of course creationism was at it's peak then.  It was the only idea around!
You stated quite prominantly that creation was disproven 200 years ago.

It was.
You have also DEMONSTRATED a very vague notion of what creationists believe.  For example - look at the many points you have brough up and I have responded to.  In almost every instance you either didn't know what the creationist view was, or had some extremely skewed notion (which you may have read from talk origins or some else).

Well, it's hard to follow the complete lack of logic and fabrication some times, so maybe that is my fault
They asked questions in the trial such as "How old is the earth?" "Did everyone outside the Ark die in the Flood? If so, what about the fish?" "Where did Cain get his wife?" "How did the snake walk—on its tail?"  This was used as propaganda against creationism.  While all of these questions can be answered today by creationists,

Oh?  Then answer them please, using studies and actual evidence, not "it may have been this way, as the bible says...."
It was only though pressure by creationists that it was ever determined to be a hoax.

Do you have details on this?
Once evolution scientists actually studied piltdown, they found it to be an OBVIOUS hoax.  So the question is - how did such an obvious hoax last so long?

Simple.  The amount of fossils they had at the time wasn't enough to show it didn't fit.  As more fossil hominids were discovered, it was seen the Piltdown Man didn't fit, thus it was relegated to the "questionable" bin, as I said.  It was the development of flourine (I believe) testing that clinched it, dating the "fossils" at about 650 years old.

And yet it is the ONLY scientific theory taught in schools

What school did you go to?  You never learned the theory of gravity?  the germ theory?  atomic theory?  You never touched on the theory of relativity?  Every science we learn is based on theories.
This hasn't happened in public schools or universities for a very long time.  It used to - in actuality, the vast majority of the most prestigous schools in America started as Christian Schools (such as Harvard).  

It certainly should happen.

Why should we teach every religions pet theory, especially when it disregards or twists facts?



-------
"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: 1:03 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
AgnosticBob

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's interesting that Creationists use the exact OPPOSITE logic when defending the bible vs attacking evolution.

When it comes to evolution and ol-age universe, they attack specific ideas.  Stuff like mood dust accumulation, the sun's shrinking diameter, etc.  They attack the trees to disprove the forest.

Most interestingly, this is precisely the opposite of what they do when it comes to the bible.  Point by point, the inconsistancies and erros abound.  The fact that the bible SEEMS to be consistant cannot be argued, by either side.  (I used SEEMS, so don't get mad)

Creationists, however, insist on explaining away point by point, pointing to the "forest" of facts about the bible.

Sorry folks, one or the other, you can't do both.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 8:57 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Oh?  Then answer them please, using studies and actual evidence, not "it may have been this way, as the bible says...."

How old is the earth?
     In the neighborhood of 6000 years.
Evidence includes written historical accounts from many cultures on the time from the flood to now, as well as Biblical accounts for the time of creation to the flood.  Geology and cosmology confirm this possibility.

Did everyone outside the Ark die?
     Yes.  The entire earth was covered by a flood for about a year.  This is confirmed by the Biblical account and by geology.  

What about fish?
     Many fish died due to the cataclysmic forces associated with the flood - but very many survived.  

Where did Cain get his wife.
     Cain is one of Adam's sons.  The Bible says that Adam had many sons and daughters.  Cain's wife was one of his sisters.  Inbreeding is dangerous today because those in the same family lines have the same built in mutative defects.  There is no outside chance of a corrective dominant gene.  However, Adam was created perfect without mutation.  At that stage in human evolution (truely the apex) there would have been very few genetic mutations, therefore close relatives could marry without consequence.   It wasn't until the days of Moses (~ 3000 years after Adam) that God gave laws for close relations marrying.  

How did the snake walk—on its tail?
     I am not really sure what this is about.  At the fall of man, God curse the snake so that it would crawl on it's belly.  

Simple.  The amount of fossils they had at the time wasn't enough to show it didn't fit.  As more fossil hominids were discovered, it was seen the Piltdown Man didn't fit, thus it was relegated to the "questionable" bin, as I said.  It was the development of flourine (I believe) testing that clinched it, dating the "fossils" at about 650 years old.

Piltdown man was an accepted fossil for 40 years before finally being completely dismissed.  It was finally dismissed because there was obvious tampering.  

gup20: And yet it is the ONLY scientific theory taught in schools


TQ: What school did you go to?  You never learned the theory of gravity?  the germ theory?  atomic theory?  You never touched on the theory of relativity?  Every science we learn is based on theories.


I think you are bright enough to relize I mean only theory of life science.   Only explanation of origin.  

Why should we teach every religions pet theory, especially when it disregards or twists facts?

That may be your opnion, but it doesn't change the fact that there is some very convincing evidence in favor of creation, as well as some very convincing evidence which renders evolution an impossibilty.


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:49 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup if you accept the possibility of talking snakes I don't think you are in an optimal position to claim anything impossible.


(Edited by Void 5/8/2004 at 3:25 PM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 3:23 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't forget about talking Donkeys too.

Balaam's donkey talked to him in the old testament.

BTW:   Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.   

(Edited by Gup20 5/8/2004 at 3:42 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:41 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
antievokid

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

im with you gup

talking snakes, donkeys, and now days we can train parrots to talk to people. (just a little joke)

i only wish there are more creationist in here to defend the BIble and God.


-------
feel free to email me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

Travis
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 11:14 PM on July 17, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you a loki?  That's beginning to look more and more like a distinct possibility...


-------
"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: 05:34 AM on July 18, 2004 | 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.