Creationism vs. Evolution

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/TheDissenter/Agnostic.jpg

No, not 'nice,' just stupid. The silly statement completely misunderstands the atheist's position which simply says 'I don't believe in 'god' or any other notion that has no scientific evidence to support it. Is it clever or humble or intelligent to say one is open to a belief in astrology, or the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster (may His pasta be praised) or any other goofy belief for which there is no evidence?

 

Hmmm yea sarcasm does get lost in the text. Here ya go

 

The reasoning is only backwards if you do not believe there was a "plan" for life. In this scientific day and age there should be no doubt how the earth and life began.....yet there is. Darwinism has been debunked by scientists as well beginning with Phillip E johnson

.
http://spktruth2power.wordpress.com...se-for-intelligent-design-darwinism-debunked/



If Darwin is correct, where are the intermediate species? Surely in millions of years there shoucl be a sure trail of partial species fossils....Fossils of species partially evolved? Not to mention their very suvival in this partially evolved state between their beginnings and eventual species.

Apparently Darwin had no idea or more importantly , evidence from an archeological evidence to back it up In other words the fossil records are incomplete and provides no strong links for the intermediate species which in that case are based upon the "FAITH" of those who believe in evolution as the sole origins of species. Yet missing links and plenty of questions are still relavant and unanswered.

So even those who believe in evolution have to have a lot of faith in missing links and unanswered science to be so convinced of such. not much different than a belief in something intelligent and much greater than ourselves when looking at the mortal perfection of life itself.

 

I'm assuming you're speaking of intermediate species in the human line?

Things like, oh, you know, Australeopithicines, Homo habilis, Homo afrerensis (spelling?), Homo erectus... those intermediate species?

The other gap in that logic is that, gee, obviously every living thing became a fossil. They don't just happen overnight. It's tough to get a fossil - die at the right spot that your bones are covered fairly quickly and become mineralized before they're decomposed or eaten. Not to mention, assuming evolution is correct, there's about 2 million years of geologic challenges that the fossils would have to survive, as well as being found.

***********
This is just an aside, not aimed specifically at you, but I'm always curious as to what sort of education in evolution the pro-creation crowd has. Mainly b/c often the common statements are addressed at any beginning level junior college biology class. I have a bio BS and an anthropology minor, and admittedly I'm skewed towards evolution... but I don't deny that maybe God (or whatever flavor deity you want) put the ingredients together and let them go from there.

 

evolution

 

You have got to be kidding. Trotting out Johnson's tired old Darwin on Trial? That 1991 rehash of faith based pseudo science has long been discredited. The book teaches little that is accurate about either the nature of science, or the topic of evolution. It is recommended neither by scientists nor educators.

Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould's review of the book stated that it contained "no weighing of evidence, no careful reading of literature on all sides, no full citation of sources (the book does not even contain a bibliography) and occasional use of scientific literature only to score rhetorical points."

Every time a new intermediate species is found, dumbass religious creationists gleefully point to two more 'gaps' created by the find. It's like saying there is a gap between the numbers 5 and 7. When 6 is discovered these lamebrains say, 'What about 5.5 and 6.5?' This goes on ad naseum.

What causes this nonsense is some dope in a Sunday School class, cites 'the latest' new book or discovery (usually 20 years old and long refuted) by some nutball amateur 'scientist' who wants to promote his faith and broadcasts this silliness to sheep. Then we have to hear about it here.

Sorry. It's old news and wrong.

 

My biggest beef with religions and Christianity specifically is that a religion can not exist without its followers. In other words all but one religion out there require information transfer from elders to younglings with intent to make them a part of the collective. Belief in gaia, on the other hand is something that a person comes to believe in on his or her own terms without proper understanding how things work. Fast forward thousands of years from ancient to present and religion is still here and not because it has been disproved but because it still follows the same basic principle of telling your children when they are young of what to believe in and if you keep at it, by time they are adults they will pass that belief on to their offspring. Any evidence to the contrary is often met with hostility and disbelief. It would not be so bad except that religion changes people. Utmost devout religious people go as far as breaking off contact with anyone who does not believe in what they believe in. I have seen it all too many times. Christians I have met do not acknowledge validity of Hinduism and refuse contact with their fellow employees. Christians I have met often cant just "close their eyes" and continue socializing with atheists embracing them as people and perhaps talking about anything else aside from religion.

TV media such as Star Trek and Stargate have suggested that in future we may very well go away with religions altogether. To be honest I do not think that it will happen any time soon primarily because religion evolves so it could properly rebut any argument against it. Just look at the last 20 years for example... intelligent design?! what?! even mere concept of that notion would have been considered a heresy in the middle ages and yet here we are in the age of when microchips can make your toilet seat sing kumbaya or genetic engineered crops feeding the world while spaceships will soon be cruising around the galaxy.

In my opinion the end of religion is not something that could be accomplished because it provides some level of comfort especially in moments of crisis. Lets say civilization as we know it ends in 2012... and only 7 people survive. 1 on each continent. I guarantee that someone will pick up a bible or other religious book and try to find some answers there. It's just how things work. And once that person finds a passage in that book that will shed light onto why something may have led to civilization's end... he or she will try to spread the word and in time that religion will be reborn.. and in time someone else will be there with another book... and in time the two beliefs will clash and blood spilled until in time someone figures out that science may be the answer and in time science or religion or both would result in civilization's end yet again thus completing the circle.

I personally believe (as an anti-theist) that it is entirely plausible that such circle of circumstances may very well have been taking place for billions of years and that we "start over" in a matter of speaking every so often. You know... colonize a planet.. deplete its resources.. move.. (but only select few that could afford to pay for such thing) while rest of planet dies... then some sort of plague hits new planet causing adults to die and children to start circle of religion vs science all over again.

Perhaps I am watching waay too much tv...

 

One of my favorite movie quotes.

K from Men in Black

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

What we know now could be drastically different from what we know in 10, 20, 50 years. Science has always been the search for truth. I used to lean towards creationism but now I have my doubts. If you just explore the science of evolution you can see how it works. Watch anything or read anything by Richard Dawkins.

 

Not evolution. Learned behavior.

Evolution is a change in the actual DNA of an organism, that causes some behavioral or phenotypic change which enhances survival and is thus present in subsequent generations.

That's why, say, Down's syndrome isn't "evolution." It's typically random, confers no survival benefit (that we currently know if, at least), and tends to not get passed often. Just like writing isn't "evolution" in humans, but rather learned behavior. Turns out though, that it probably helped our species improve themselves.

 

creationism is learned behavior

 

That is just awesome. I had to have my girlfriend come in from the other room to enjoy that one with me

 

Well put .

 

I am a christian. I believe God created everything.... But whats to say that God didnt use Evolution to mold the world to what it is today... so perhaps God's creation process is Evolution... Either way we're here so it doesnt really matter

 

Also well put

 

For those who can see the perfection of the universe and the perfection of the biological cycles it does not take a Phd to clearly understand an intelligent force at work man is trying desperately without success to prove never existed.
Actually I am assuming ALL intermediate forms of all species as opposed to the obvious .......certain fossils of species exist but no links? Even Darwin himself had no answer for that.......and you do? I believe you are referring to the more modern "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, which tried without success to make "proper evolution" invisible in fossil records which is nothing more than speculation ....like a creator.So where are all the "half evolved" elephants and pterodactyls anyway?

 

So you say because you place your "faith" in men and chose which Scientists are relevant based on your belief system and what makes perfect sense to you while calling others "dumb asses" There is where you reveal your own ignorance and lose all credibility,

The same can be said about Darwin. He has been discredited by Darwinists!!..Darwin's "Tree of Life" is wrong. . ....You see even those who believe in evolution have not found indisputable fact in that theory any more than those who believe in a creator..and around and around we go.

I have a suspicion man will never find the answer or a clear path to the beginnings of life that will go from theory to fact. Theory is not fact. It requires just as much faith in Science as those who believe in a creator.
Without fact there is only faith in theory, and that is what evolutionists ridicule!! faith in that which is unknown.

Many new studies are calling into question Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

no one claims evolution is not possible but no one has proven life was created from some primordial soup either.

Some men put their faith and belief in other men with letters after their name who had faith and believed in other men with the same....They desperately want to believe in man. I have seen man's "works". I have seen God's "works". I have little doubt where to place my faith..

 

if we evolved...why the hell arent we still? I dont see any monkeys turning into people

 

And if monkeys turned into people, why do we still have monkeys?

 

So, half evolved elephants don't include things like mammoths or mastedons? If you even google "evolution of elephants" you'll get some decent hits on the first page - some shown below. Or go to a decent natural science museum, and there's typically a display showing the evolutionary tree ("suspected" I guess I should say for clarity) of some species.

http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6913934.stm

I don't think that 'punctuated evolution' has been disproven, yet. If you think so, I invite you to send some sources!

Obviously we're not going to end this debate right here and now, but if you're going to spew off viewpoints, at least be familiar with some of the basic refutes to your claims.