An unreasonable debate...

[Sir_Loin]

Hello,
I just wanted to post on here my thoughts about the whole Evolution v Creation thing- IT'S UNREASONABLE.
Let me elaborate.

Evolution is a theory on how modern man came to be today- today meaning long ago, of course. Evolutionists (yes it's a word) believe in changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can create new species. Creationists (also a damn word for you etymological geniuses) believe that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

An Evolutionist and Creationist step up to the pulpit to debate their ideals.
We now have a predicament. The problem being that one is supporting their theory by examining the world around us and carrying out experiments to support this theory by finding old fossils and carrying out dating techniques such as carbon dating (Side note: Dating techniques aren't exactly accurate anyway) and what-not. This is the Evolutionist.
The Creationist supports their theory by using a piece of Script written a long long time ago. Period. (To the creationists out there, I'm not trying to demean this theory because, who knows, you could ultimately be right).

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Hello,
I just wanted to post on here my thoughts about the whole Evolution v Creation thing- IT'S UNREASONABLE.
Let me elaborate.

Evolution is a theory on how modern man came to be today- today meaning long ago, of course. Evolutionists (yes it's a word) believe in changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can create new species. Creationists (also a damn word for you etymological geniuses) believe that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

An Evolutionist and Creationist step up to the pulpit to debate their ideals.
We now have a predicament. The problem being that one is supporting their theory by examining the world around us and carrying out experiments to support this theory by finding old fossils and carrying out dating techniques such as carbon dating (Side note: Dating techniques aren't exactly accurate anyway) and what-not. This is the Evolutionist.
The Creationist supports their theory by using a piece of Script written a long long time ago. Period. (To the creationists out there, I'm not trying to demean this theory because, who knows, you could ultimately be right).

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

Evolutionists and creationists are telling incompatible stories about the world. Creationists are making *factual* claims about the world that are false. For instance, either the world is 10k years old or it is 4.5 billion years old. When a creationist makes such a claim, they are making a factual claim about the world that can be countered with true claims that have evidential support.

By the way, radiometric dating *is* accurate. C14 has a relatively short halflife for dating purposes and other isotopes are often used for older finds.

Evolution is an extremely well tested theory with multiple strands of evidence supporting it, from a large fossil collection to phylogenetics. This isn't an issue of evolutionists who have scant evidence themselves facing off with creationists who have scant evidence. This is akin to geologists dealing with people who insist that the earth is hollow and filled with crab people.

 

[outhouse]

We now have a predicament.

Yes we do.


One side used willful ignorance and ancient men's mythology as evidence.


The other side uses observed facts on so many levels it is laughable in this modern age to think some people cannot accept these facts due to personal bias.




One is outlawed from poisoning our children's minds in science classes.


The other is taught in every credible university around the world as higher education.


Evolution is fact

This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world, theist included, and contains substantiated facts to back their position.

You don't have to like the truth, or be part of the majority.


IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[ChristineES]

Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact (aka Natural Law) until it is proven beyond doubt and it hasn't been. I am not saying it isn't true or anything but I wanted to state that.

Creationism and evolution are not as incompatible as one would think. Maybe not compatible, but, although it is semantics, a person could believe that God created evolution if they wanted to.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact (aka Natural Law) until it is proven beyond doubt. I am not saying it isn't true or anything but I wanted to state that.

That's a mistaken understand of the terms. There is the bare fact that evolution has occurred/occurs. Then, there is the explanatory theory for the how and why it occurs. For instance, when I drop my cup it falls to the ground, there is the fact, its falling, the amount of acceleration I measure. Coming up with an explanatory model of gravity is the theory. The latter will *always* be a theory, no matter how well proven. This is why extremely well proven theories remain theories. The term 'theory' does not indicate whether or not it is extremely well supported empirically or not. Germ theory is still a theory, I think we all firmly believe germ theory. Special relativity is a theory, it is used to build nuclear weapons.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Maybe not compatible, but, although it is semantics, a person could believe that God created evolution if they wanted to.

Perhaps. But the problem with this is that if Creationists believed this they would no longer be Creationists. Because I'm sure that in the Bible it says that God created the world in 5 days (or was it 6 or 7?), and evolution happens over an extremely long period of time.
So yeah, they are incompatible

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact (aka Natural Law) until it is proven beyond doubt and it hasn't been. I am not saying it isn't true or anything but I wanted to state that.

C'mon Christine, you've been here long enough to be able to understand the difference between a "theory" and a scientific theory, which is what evolutionary theory is. Biological evolution is a fact. It happens. What isn't fully understood is every mechanism and process involved. That's what science fleshes out over time.

 

[viole]

Hello,
I just wanted to post on here my thoughts about the whole Evolution v Creation thing- IT'S UNREASONABLE.
Let me elaborate.

Evolution is a theory on how modern man came to be today- today meaning long ago, of course. Evolutionists (yes it's a word) believe in changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can create new species. Creationists (also a damn word for you etymological geniuses) believe that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

An Evolutionist and Creationist step up to the pulpit to debate their ideals.
We now have a predicament. The problem being that one is supporting their theory by examining the world around us and carrying out experiments to support this theory by finding old fossils and carrying out dating techniques such as carbon dating (Side note: Dating techniques aren't exactly accurate anyway) and what-not. This is the Evolutionist.
The Creationist supports their theory by using a piece of Script written a long long time ago. Period. (To the creationists out there, I'm not trying to demean this theory because, who knows, you could ultimately be right).

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

I don't think that the Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

In the creationist camp I also count Christians who accept evolution. They are also creationists; maybe a bit more sophisticated, but...nevertheless. After all it is called "Evolution by natural selection" and whomever sees a conscious guide in it did not really understand it.

I think that creationism is easy to understand, whereas evolution isn't, despite the simplicity of the idea.

And the fact that this simple idea is so poorly understood provides evidence of a psychological barrier. We simply do not like to be the product of unguided processes, no matter how simple these principes are. Actually, being so simple plays against their acceptance.

Once we understand the anthropocentric psychology and our innate pride as a species, creationism and its origins become very easy to explain.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hello,
I just wanted to post on here my thoughts about the whole Evolution v Creation thing- IT'S UNREASONABLE.

Of course it's unreasonable. Arguing with creationists is like trying to debate with someone who still believes the Earth is flat. If someone is able to retain that level of willful ignorance about the world at this point in time, no amount of facts or rational debate is going to convince them otherwise.

 

[ChristineES]

That's a mistaken understand of the terms. There is the bare fact that evolution has occurred/occurs. Then, there is the explanatory theory for the how and why it occurs. For instance, when I drop my cup it falls to the ground, there is the fact, its falling, the amount of acceleration I measure. Coming up with an explanatory model of gravity is the theory. The latter will *always* be a theory, no matter how well proven. This is why extremely well proven theories remain theories. The term 'theory' does not indicate whether or not it is extremely well supported empirically or not. Germ theory is still a theory, I think we all firmly believe germ theory. Special relativity is a theory, it is used to build nuclear weapons.

A theory is a theory. A scientific theory is a theory. That's all I'm going to say on the subject. I agree it's a fruitless debate and kind of ridiculous. Whether various evolutionary theories are ever totally proven or not, it doesn't affect my belief in God, so I don't really worry too much about it. (The type of science I enjoy is all about the planets, I really enjoyed watching the Lunar Eclipse, I look at NASA photos, and things of that nature).

 

[brokensymmetry]

A theory is a theory. A scientific theory is a theory. That's all I'm going to say on the subject. I agree it's a fruitless debate and kind of ridiculous. Whether various evolutionary theories are ever totally proven or not, it doesn't affect my belief in God, so I don't really worry too much about it. (The type of science I enjoy is all about the planets, I really enjoyed watching the Lunar Eclipse, I look at NASA photos, and things of that nature).

You missed my point. A theory could be *extremely well established emprically* and it will still be a theory. It doesn't turn into a fact because facts are not explanatory models and theories ARE. Something being a theory has nothing to say about whether or not it has a lot of empirical evidence or not.

 

[ChristineES]

You missed my point. A theory could be *extremely well established empirically* and it will still be a theory. It doesn't turn into a fact because facts are not explanatory models and theories ARE. Something being a theory has nothing to say about whether or not it has a lot of empirical evidence or not.

Then what's the debate? I agree with that what you say here. When I studied Physical Anthropology, it was all about empirical evidence as our instructor pointed out to us at the beginning of class. There is ample evidence that we and animals, plants, etc, do, indeed, adapt.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Then what's the debate? I agree with that what you say here. When I studied Physical Anthropology, it was all about empirical evidence as our instructor pointed out to us at the beginning of class. There is ample evidence that we and animals, plants, etc, do, indeed, adapt.

Because you suggested in your first post about this that evolution is not a fact and it's not a fact due to lack of evidence. This is a misconception of what facts and theories are.

 

[outhouse]

Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact .

Im sorry you see that way, but in no way am I incorrect.



AS per this sticky in this very forum!!!!!!!!!


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory




Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps. But the problem with this is that if Creationists believed this they would no longer be Creationists. Because I'm sure that in the Bible it says that God created the world in 5 days (or was it 6 or 7?), and evolution happens over an extremely long period of time.
So yeah, they are incompatible

Your right.

They are not compatible.


One is real science and knowledge.

The other is known mythology that goes against all education and knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

What is not being said, and the reason EVOLUTION is FACT is

many scientific theories are collections of FACTS to come to the conclusion of said theory


It is a fact as evolution has been observed.

 

[ChristineES]

Im sorry you see that way, but in no way am I incorrect.



AS per this sticky in this very forum!!!!!!!!!


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory




Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

You misunderstand me. I can see that some of the evolutionary concepts have indeed been shown; that is not in debate. I am saying that the WHOLE of it has not been proven nor can it be. I am speaking of one creature gradually becoming another one, or of humans gradually changing from Australopithecus and various forms (or whatever). We have the empirical evidence that they did, indeed, exist, as have Homoerectus and Neanderthal have. I don't think we are as far apart in our thinking as you would think.

 

[outhouse]

You misunderstand me. .

I did not misunderstand the facts part I corrected you on. I have been waiting for someone to call me on that. Did not think it would be you.


I did understand the context you placed it under, which was not how I worded it.

I am saying that the WHOLE of it has not been proven nor can it be.

Oh it has been proved 100 times over.


There is no debate here at all. There are only those that do not accept the advanced knowledge we have.

I am speaking of one creature gradually becoming another one

Sorry.

There is no debate here what so ever.


Only those who refuse the facts we possess and wish to pervert scientific findings to meet their personal bias.

 

[outhouse]

If there is part of this you do not understand I would love to help





IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[ChristineES]

Oh it has been proved 100 times over.

No, it has not, there is not a way it could be proven beyond doubt. That is the last I'm saying about it. My instructor for my Physical Anthropology class said it had not, and he is a scientist and is not a theist by any means and I've heard many other scientists say the same thing many times. As I said, I am not responding anymore, as it would devolve into a circular argument of "It isn't- It is".