Creationism vs. Evolution

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: vistla If "God" did not exist,........it would be necessary to invent him.quote>

Huh? Why?

Originally posted by: Barbarossa ... Creationists are under the false impression that things are perfect (like the eye, which they love to cite). The eye is not perfect, in any species. If you where glasses, or have astigmatism, then you should realize this, if you do not already understand. There is no perfection in nature

...

Barbarossaquote>

This is a good point. Nothing in nature is perfect, I have seen enough evidence of this in biology. The theory of evolution explains why this is so, and how that can affect change. I also notice that  the points we have raised in this respect previously in the thread have all gone unanswered by the creationists.

[Joesocwork 4]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: Barbarossa ... Creationists are under the false impression that things are perfect (like the eye, which they love to cite). The eye is not perfect, in any species. If you where glasses, or have astigmatism, then you should realize this, if you do not already understand. There is no perfection in nature

...

Barbarossaquote>

This is a good point. Nothing in nature is perfect, I have seen enough evidence of this in biology. The theory of evolution explains why this is so, and how that can affect change. I also notice that  the points we have raised in this respect previously in the thread have all gone unanswered by the creationists.quote>

 

Whose definition of perfection?  At least speaking for myself, I think all I've said is that nature suggests that it has been engineered.  As to how Deity should have done it or anything else or any other questions about the nature of Deity that I don't understand I leave that up to Deity, anything else just strikes as me as trying to make force God into one's own image as opposed to accepting what is out there apart from one's self.

[patriots_1228 51]

i should start my own religion...because i beleive in most of the bible but i find evolution alot more probably than creationism. In my opinion, the universe is probably like a pan on a stove...god just throws the stuff in and lets it do its own thing, and if it comes out well, he will eat it (heaven) and if it burns, it will go to the trash (hell)

That would make a great SNL skit^

[coolotter88 2]

yes and God is just a human, 6000 years more advanced than us.

seriously, God is not a genetic engineer, genetic engineers are humans. I think, God should not be treated like a human, but like a deity where he does deity-y things like write the life of all the people of the world.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: vistla If "God" did not exist,........it would be necessary to invent him.quote>

Huh? Why?

quote>

Put yourself in 20 BC. You watch the sun rise one day, and you think to yourself "now, how does that happen?". A great man lifting it into the sky, perhaps? Seems logical. Creating Gods, the way I see it, was pretty much the way of explaining nature back then. Of course, I'm no history major.

And perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, IMO. There's no set standard for it.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Joesocwork

Whose definition of perfection?  ...quote>

I have no idea what they mean by it when they say that, that's what I'm asking. Its a word I hear creationists use, usually in the context (as barbarossa indicated) "the eye is perfect so it must have been designed". I'm sure you'll find a few instances of that quote in this very thread.

[Mikeaut1 261]

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: vistla If "God" did not exist,........it would be necessary to invent him.quote>

Huh? Why?

quote>

Put yourself in 20 BC. You watch the sun rise one day, and you think to yourself "now, how does that happen?". A great man lifting it into the sky, perhaps? Seems logical. Creating Gods, the way I see it, was pretty much the way of explaining nature back then. Of course, I'm no history major.

And perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, IMO. There's no set standard for it.quote>

People in 20BC had a reason to believe that the sun was God's creation. It just doesn't have to be 20 years before Christ came, because Christ has nothing to do with the creation of this earth.

God, his Father, does. He created the haevens and the earth before there was even life. And prior to Christ's birth, Israelites believed in God, and believed in creationism. Genesis through Malachai in the Bible are all about the Israelites and what they faced. And all of them believed in a God before Christ showed up, and they believed in the creation of this universe.

[schm0 27]

This forum has officially gotten out of hand recently. If you'd like to talk about creationism or evolution, post in here. If you'd like to talk about religions or the existence of God, I have created a new thread. I have also included links to the House of Worship thread.

Please refer all religious or supernatural discussion to either of two following threads:

The SimTropolis House of Worship

The Existence of God: A philosophical, religious, and scientific discussion

[Mikeaut1 261]

Not to disrupt the 2 post rule, but I really think that we should stick to one thread, The Simtropolis House of Worship. It's been around longer and that thread is the primary topic on Simtropolis for discussion of religion and other various beliefs.

Thanks though for getting involved in the discussion and making your mark!

[coolotter88 2]

the 2 post rule is not effected in this forum.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: vistla If "God" did not exist,........it would be necessary to invent him.quote>

Huh? Why?

quote>

Put yourself in 20 BC. You watch the sun rise one day, and you think to yourself "now, how does that happen?". A great man lifting it into the sky, perhaps? Seems logical. Creating Gods, the way I see it, was pretty much the way of explaining nature back then. Of course, I'm no history major. ...quote>

I was kind of hoping it might have been a philosophical question.

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: Joesocwork

Whose definition of perfection?  At least speaking for myself, I think all I've said is that nature suggests that it has been engineered. ...quote>

I have no idea what they mean by it when they say that, that's what I'm asking. Its a word I hear creationists use, usually in the context (as barbarossa indicated) "the eye is perfect so it must have been designed". I'm sure you'll find a few instances of that quote in this very thread.quote>

Ok I decided to try a little experiment. All around this forum page are little google ads. The ads are somehow selected to fit to the words on the page.  I definitely do remember frequently seeing variations on the creationist claims using the "eye" and its "perfection" (and/or "appearance of design") as evidence of creation and evidence against evolution in various creationist materials. So I figured that if I clicked on a few of these ads I might find an example fairly quickly.

Well that wasn't too hard! I clicked first on the one called "Creation or Evolution? Does it matter what you believe?" I see a little booklet advertised - chapters include "The Miracle of the Eye" on the main page. So I click on the booklet to find out more.Here is a quote directly from the fourth paragraph:

The essential problem for Darwinists is how so many intricate components could have independently evolved to work together perfectly when, if a single component didn't function perfectly, nothing would work at all.

quote>

As a side note, there were 9 ad slots. 5 were taken with overtly creationist ads, 2 were other pro-religion sites and the last two were the same ad for Korn ringtones. An interesting little experiment in its own right.

The old arguments of "perfection" (watchmaker anyone?) may have been substituted with more modern terms such as "irreducible complexity" or "fine tuning" but are essentially the same creationists argument.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: vistla If "God" did not exist,........it would be necessary to invent him.quote>

Huh? Why?

quote>

Put yourself in 20 BC. You watch the sun rise one day, and you think to yourself "now, how does that happen?". A great man lifting it into the sky, perhaps? Seems logical. Creating Gods, the way I see it, was pretty much the way of explaining nature back then. Of course, I'm no history major. ...quote>

I was kind of hoping it might have been a philosophical question.

quote>

The actual quote is from a poem by Voltaire, a Deist.

[Sam 163]

Thanks. I'll see if I can find the Voltaire quote.

[schm0 27]

I just recorded a documentary on Showtime called "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution - Intelligent Design Circus". I'll report on it as soon as I'm done watching.

[coolotter88 2]

hey, Creationists, look at this!

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/198257&from=rss

well, looks like prominent scientists don't want to be associated with "supporting" Creationism (maybe because it's WRONG).

heh, this should stir up some argument *shifty eyes*

[2nerdy4u 1]

The way I see it, Creationists are just looking for anything that could be manipulated in such a way that it appears to prove their point. There is no evidence for Creationism. The Bible cannot be trusted as a scientific document. Already, we have disproved things in the Bible. The Bible is just a book that was written a long time ago by men (perhaps prominent men in their time, but their ideas no longer mean anything of scientific value).

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 hey, Creationists, look at this!

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/198257&from=rss

well, looks like prominent scientists don't want to be associated with "supporting" Creationism (maybe because it's WRONG).quote>

Who says its wrong? ...Also, just so you know, scientists have been wrong plenty of times in the past. Plus anyone can post anything at all on the internet, and your biased site does not sway my opinions, and it never will.

Originally posted by: 2nerdy4u The Bible cannot be trusted as a scientific document. Already, we have disproved things in the Bible. The Bible is just a book that was written a long time ago by men (perhaps prominent men in their time, but their ideas no longer mean anything of scientific value).quote>

What has been disproven? Can you post some sort of hardcore evidence? Also, the bible isn't a scientific document anyway? A lot of stuff in the bible is historically accurate, the cities and events really did take place...even the very liberal history channel has shown that.

[Mikeaut1 261]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: coolotter88 hey, Creationists, look at this!

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/198257&from=rss

well, looks like prominent scientists don't want to be associated with "supporting" Creationism (maybe because it's WRONG).quote>

Who says its wrong? ...Also, just so you know, scientists have been wrong plenty of times in the past. Plus anyone can post anything at all on the internet, and your biased site does not sway my opinions, and it never will.

Originally posted by: 2nerdy4u The Bible cannot be trusted as a scientific document. Already, we have disproved things in the Bible. The Bible is just a book that was written a long time ago by men (perhaps prominent men in their time, but their ideas no longer mean anything of scientific value).quote>

What has been disproven? Can you post some sort of hardcore evidence? Also, the bible isn't a scientific document anyway? A lot of stuff in the bible is historically accurate, the cities and events really did take place...even the very liberal history channel has shown that.quote>

So true! (in your latter statement about disproving the Bible)... The Bible is historically accurate, from the tension between Israel and Assyria, to King Nebuchadnezzar's reign in Babylon. In fact, the tensions between the Arabs and Jews today stem back to tensions between the two recorded in the Bible. So there is no way that the Bible is not historically accurate, because a majority of it is. And I don't understand why people dont get how the Bible will not offer physical evidence of creationism. It's a book of faith, for God's sake! (no pun intended). Also, good point about the History Channel too Frankie.

[schm0 27]

Since when did the History Channel change it's name to The Very Liberal History Channel?

The disproven statements in the Bible to which 2nerdy4u refers refer mainly to the first several paragraphs regarding the creation story. The carbon-dating of rocks, spectral analysis of the sun, and the measuring of distance between galaxies has disproven the claim that existence as we know it was created in 7 days. Furthermore, fossil records and theories of natural selection and evolution disprove that man was created directly from God's own image, and instead we have learned that we are indeed related to (and descended from) primates.

Nobody will ever be able to prove that Moses didn't turn his staff into a stake, that Jesus walked on water, or that Jonah was swallowed by a whale and lived to tell about it. However, the Great Flood and the plagues in Egypt can be attributed just as much to natural phenomena as supernatural.

Creationism is based on a religious document and belief system, and Intelligent Design is based on a premise that the order of life and its complexity could only have come from an "intelligent" higher power. Neither provides any scientific evidence to support their claims. (Intelligent Design, in fact, depends on the things we don't understand.)

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: schm0 Since when did the History Channel change it's name to The Very Liberal History Channel?

The disproven statements in the Bible to which 2nerdy4u refers refer mainly to the first several paragraphs regarding the creation story. The carbon-dating of rocks, spectral analysis of the sun, and the measuring of distance between galaxies has disproven the claim that existence as we know it was created in 7 days.quote>

Carbon dating is not always 100% accurate, repeated dating of the same samples can cause enormous ranges, and the same result is almost never achieved.

And yes the 7 days...since days weren't measured in the same way that we do on our modern calender, it is a common misconception that its a literal 7 days, that number 7 represents our week. I personally would like to see the original Hebrew text, and read it for what it really is.

Furthermore, fossil records and theories of natural selection and evolution disprove that man was created directly from God's own image, and instead we have learned that we are indeed related to (and descended from) primates. quote>

Theories do not disprove anything.

[2nerdy4u 1]

One major thing that science has disproved would be the geocentric idea of the universe. Quite a big one, don't you think?

And I think we REALLY need to get some terminology down. A scientific theory is VERY different from the common use of the word. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Also, I am aware of the fact that the Bible is a historical book. That I am fine with and I think it's great. This, however, does not have anything to do with science.

One problem with the Bible is that all of the facts are too... wishy-washy. Nothing is absolute. This can be a problem because then within the idea of Creationism there is debate. 7 Gregorian days or 7... metaphorical days? Even if people do accept Creationism, there will be a problem. With the Bible, there are so many different interpretations. And this is why there are so many different types of Christianity (which haven't always gotten along with each other).

Oh well, I digress. The point is: the Bible is too unclear and "smudgy" (best word I can think of) to be taken as scientific fact (because even the stated "facts" are subject to multiple translations).

[coolotter88 2]

what enormous ranges? radioactive half lives are exact. you can't change them. we're only off by plus or minus 40 years with carbon dating which is insignificant.

5720 years, half life of carbon 14, doesn't change.

and before you argue that it CAN change, think about yucca mountain and WHY we can't just leave nuclear waste lying around (because the half lives are constant and we can't speed up the decay process)

and historically accurate does NOT mean scientific accuracy. Did humans have all these instruments we have today in the time of the Bible? I don't think they had atom smashers or geiger counters or pretty much anything.

and @ 2nerdy4you: I've tried explaining theory in science terms, it doesn't work

[sarcasm] well, i'm just going to go off and not believe in the theory of gravity. because god's hand is pushing me onto the ground. [/sarcasm]

[BurroDiablo 222]

I tend to stay away from Religious topics because they seriously confuse me that this day in age, people can still choose the big magic man over Logical explainations. But who needs logic? I can pull a rabbit from my ears and make a cars out of Beer... it might sound rediculous but you can't prove it, you can't disprove it, so why should you even beleive me? I know you won't beleive because, not doubt, you'll want proof first.... but do people ask for proof before turning to God? I'm sure some do, but they don't receive any... why is that? Because there is none? Thats a shame, looks like i'm in the clear though... along with Santa, the Easter Bunny and Lepracauns.

Sorry if that offended anyone, but Logic>Magic 'miracles' in my book

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: schm0 I just recorded a documentary on Showtime called "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution - Intelligent Design Circus". I'll report on it as soon as I'm done watching.quote>

Looks interesting Schm0. There is a website with a trailer here: http://www.flockofdodos.com/

I wasn't exactly impressed with the trailer, even though the music is catchy. But I read some reviews and they sound rather interesting, so I Iook forward to your report, since I can't exactly watch it until (or if) it is screened here.

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: coolotter88

...

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/198257&from=rss

well, looks like prominent scientists don't want to be associated with "supporting" Creationism (maybe because it's WRONG).quote>

Who says its wrong? ...Also, just so you know, scientists have been wrong plenty of times in the past. Plus anyone can post anything at all on the internet, and your biased site does not sway my opinions, and it never will.

...quote>

If you don't like that website, then why not go straight to the source and verify it for your self?

I googled it and found it in seconds. Its freely available at the online version of American Scientist, and it makes for interesting reading. Here's the direct link for you: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234

Its not the whole article that is being withdrawn apparently, just two small paragraphs. The particular paragraphs and reasons give are interesting whichever side of the debate you are on, especially as they deal with two very popular (but inaccurate) creationist arguments.

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: schm0 Since when did the History Channel change it's name to The Very Liberal History Channel?

The disproven statements in the Bible to which 2nerdy4u refers refer mainly to the first several paragraphs regarding the creation story. The carbon-dating of rocks, spectral analysis of the sun, and the measuring of distance between galaxies has disproven the claim that existence as we know it was created in 7 days.quote>

Carbon dating is not always 100% accurate, repeated dating of the same samples can cause enormous ranges, and the same result is almost never achieved.

...quote>

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of carbon dating and the problems you perceive with it? And as before, it would be appreciated if you could please provide some examples of evidence to support your statements rather than just stating something as fact.  We've covered carbon dating several times in this thread already, and tried to clear up a few apparent misconceptions about it.

Originally posted by: 2nerdy4u

...

And I think we REALLY need to get some terminology down. A scientific theory is VERY different from the common use of the word. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

...quote>

I think we've raised this before . I'm a bit curious as to what the difficulty is with this, as<

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Carbon dating is not always 100% accurate, repeated dating of the same samples can cause enormous ranges, and the same result is almost never achieved.quote>

I'm not a paleontologist or a carbon dating expert, but I found someone who is. He wrote an  article on the very "controversy" that you refer to.

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:

They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds -- have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous. Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah's flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow 'drowned' by the flood. The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.quote>

And yes the 7 days...since days weren't measured in the same way that we do on our modern calender, it is a common misconception that its a literal 7 days, that number 7 represents our week.quote>

Genesis, Chapter 1, verses 1-5:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.quote>

Seems pretty clear to me.

I personally would like to see the original Hebrew text, and read it for what it really is.

Theories do not disprove anything.quote>

And science is a bunch of hogwash.

[Mikeaut1 261]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 what enormous ranges? radioactive half lives are exact. you can't change them. we're only off by plus or minus 40 years with carbon dating which is insignificant.

5720 years, half life of carbon 14, doesn't change.

and before you argue that it CAN change, think about yucca mountain and WHY we can't just leave nuclear waste lying around (because the half lives are constant and we can't speed up the decay process)

and historically accurate does NOT mean scientific accuracy. Did humans have all these instruments we have today in the time of the Bible? I don't think they had atom smashers or geiger counters or pretty much anything.

and @ 2nerdy4you: I've tried explaining theory in science terms, it doesn't work

[sarcasm] well, i'm just going to go off and not believe in the theory of gravity. because god's hand is pushing me onto the ground. [/sarcasm]quote>

 

You should take it easy with your sarcasm. Because people could get offended, and it isn't exactly contributing to anything significant in your argument.

And science is a bunch of hogwash.quote>

It's not. But evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. They are both theories that are open to a lot of criticism.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: El Burro ... I can pull a rabbit from my ears and make a cars out of Beer... it might sound rediculous but you can't prove it, you can't disprove it, so why should you even beleive me? ...quote>

Sound like a waste of beer though quote>

I was expecting a Drink Driving pun

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Mikeaut1 261]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Frankie Grove said: Also, just so you know, scientists have been wrong plenty of times in the past.quote>

Science is self-correcting. It is expected that things will change. This is a major plus for scientific study.

Frankie Grove said: What has been disproven? Can you post some sort of hardcore evidence? Also, the bible isn't a scientific document anyway? A lot of stuff in the bible is historically accurate, the cities and events really did take place...even the very liberal history channel has shown that.quote>

There is plenty of evidence, and plenty of discussion about it. The Bible is not a scientific document. No one in the scientific community thinks it is. However, it is a literary document. There are all sorts of literary documents that have a historical basis, like War and Peace, Homer's Iliad or The Odyssey. Yes, a lot of the topics in the Bible are "somewhat" historically accurate, but not everything, and to assume so is folly. Read up on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

Frankie Grove said: Theories do not disprove anything.quote>

Mikeaut1 said But evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. They are both theories that are open to a lot of criticism.quote>

Why is it so hard for people to understand that a scientific Theory is not a "theory" by the general dictionary definition? This has been stated so many times, I am beginning to think opponents do not know how to read. Scientific theories have dis-proven most supernatural/magical explanations. Evolution is a Theory, creationism isn't even a theory, it is a Hypothesis, and an untestable one, at that.

Barbarossaquote>

 

And when are the opposers to creationism going to realize that Creationism will never be proven? And that it is all based upon faith? And I don't see the difference between theory and hypothesis. Both theories and hypotheses are explanations of something with provided evidence and ideas to support it. The creationists here have provided evidence and knowledge based upon creationism. The evolutionists have provided evidence on their beliefs as well. So there ya go: both ideas are theories. In school, evolution and creationism are taught as theories.