Yay! Why can't creationists just look at, on one hand their lack of evidence, on the other, the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and just put the two together?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?
- Thread starter Im an Atheist
- Start date
Yay! Why can't creationists just look at, on one hand their lack of evidence, on the other, the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and just put the two together?
Well, creationism isn't a theory, it barely passes as a hypothesis.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Wow, then this guy hasn't got a clue about geology. In fact, i don't think he deserved his degree. Within the earth there are these little rocks containing magnetic material that is decaying linearly which can be found usually at mining sites where you find iron and natural gas. This is quite remarkable considering most rocks lose their magnetic field when they align themselves to the earths magnetic field, or come into contact with water.
When these rocks are examined, you can see their magnetic dipoles (assuming you know what you're looking for) which are scattered. This is odd because generally speaking, they should all point in one direction towards one of the poles. The fact that they don't displays that magnetic pole reversals have occured. Now, geologically speaking, these rocks are between 500 and 600 million years old depending on which continent you find them on.
Physicists determined this, and geotechnical specialists can verify the age of rocks and soil.
Even with this basic basic evidence your theory is just silly but nice try
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Please explain what any of this has to do with evolution.
Assume your conclusion much?
Here's a wild idea. If you want to discuss evolution, how about if we actually discuss evolution? Just a thought.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I'm making life right now... no supernatural intervention needed.
Organic chemistry is a fantastic thing.. so much more dynamic than inorganic chemistry.
wa:do
Organic chemistry is a fantastic thing.. so much more dynamic than inorganic chemistry.
wa:do
Im an Atheist
Biologist
Organic chemisry does seem like a diverse and interesting subject. As carbon makes up nearly every molecule known to man then it is pretty special
jtartar
Well-Known Member
I'm an Atheist,
I always laugh when I hear someone say there is much evidence to support evolution. Please, ANYONE, tell me some evidence!! In spite of the claims there is no evidence.
There are a few interesting words that I have found. Prestabolism; means that everything reproduces according to it's kind. This law has never been broken, nor can it be, whether the try is by Invivo or invitro. This means that what is stated in the Bible at Gen 1:21,24,25,26, is always true, both for animals and plants. God made everything to reproduce according to it's own kind.
Someone might ask; why is this so? Think; if things did not reproduce according to their kinds, after a period of time there would be no distinct kinds, every animal would be changing and would have characteristics of bothe the one behind and the one it is evolving into.
What do we find when we look at the record of found fossils?? After finding over a million fossil animals and plants, NOT ONE has been found to be a composite of animals. When a scientist finds a fossil he is able by DEFFERENTIATION, to identify every fossil without problem. If evolution were true, over a million years of animals changing, there would be no distinct kinds, only a mixture of different animals.
Another comical word is: HOMOPLASY. Everyone knows an aniimal cannot reproduce unless his reproductive organs are matured. In homoplasy the idea is that two, female and another male evolved in parallel until they could reproduce. Comical right?? How did these animals remain alive until their reproductive parts evolved to maturity??? Can you imagine the idea of two animals evolving along, One male the other female, without even knowing there was even such as the other sex??? Very silly!!! RIGHT???
One more thing that really calls for laughter. Cosmological Argument or Proof. Then we have Teleological Argumant, or PROOF. Then we have Argument by Design. All of these prove beyond any doubt there is a designer for all things. Whether you want to call this designer God of some other title is your business, Rom 1:18-23.
Man has several branches of science that seeks to copy the different designs in nature. Why is is so hard to admitt that these designs, copied from the original great designer, are just an inferior design.
How is it possible that these inferior designs, were designed, but the vastly superior designs were just a product of chance, and had no designer. Silly, Silly!!
How can anyone have trust and confidence in people who believe and teach,such absurdities???
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Please define "Kind"...
Evolution doesn't work by making "composite animals"...
Homoplasy is when two distinct species have similar features that are not gained through shared ancestry... like the wings of birds and bats and butterflies.
Also sexes don't evolve separate from one another, but together. It's called sexual selection and it's very well documented.
Perhaps you need to look into some basic science?
wa:do
this is a good thing... finding one would disprove evolution!
Evolution doesn't work by making "composite animals"...
what is silly is that you totally have the definition of homoplasy wrong.
Homoplasy is when two distinct species have similar features that are not gained through shared ancestry... like the wings of birds and bats and butterflies.
Also sexes don't evolve separate from one another, but together. It's called sexual selection and it's very well documented.
Perhaps you need to look into some basic science?
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Sure, I'll lay out the evidence for you. I think it will work better if you first understand what the Theory of Evolution (ToE)says. Do you?
Defne "kind. And in fact this turns out to be the case.
That's a good thing, because if it did, it would disprove the ToE. The ToE predicts this will never happen.
Nope, ToE does not predict this.
No, that is not what homoplasy means.
By eating and sleeping.
Yes, that would be silly!!! That may explain why it does not happen that way.
Now let me make sure I understand you. You're an atheist, arguing that there is a God? Maybe by "atheist" you meant "liar?"
Even if evolution had zero evidence, which is far from true. It doesn't prove creationism, creationism only becomes viable when it has evidence to stand on, not the lack of some other theories evidence. If evolution were proven false tomorrow, we would need to start looking for a new theory, creationism isn't proven because evolution is false, thats not the way things work, ever!
No, creationsim requires faith, evolution is supported by the evidence. There's a huge difference.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Are you familiar with the evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution (ToE) or did you make this statement in ignorance? So do you think all Biologists are really stupid?
Yes there is and it al around you, it called Creation or as is stated in the Bible the things created.
Some insights from scientist: In some mysterious way, God is the creator of all the living forms in the evolutionary process, and particularly in homin persons, each with the conscious selfhood of an immortal soul. (A Theistic Evolutionist, John C. Eccles, Nobel Prize winner, physiology, medicine) Evidence of Purpose, 1994, p. 132.
Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details, the blade of grass, the Conus cedonulli, or the resonance levels of the carbon atom also suggest a God of purpose and a God of design. And I think my belief makes me no less a scientist. (Owen Gingerich, astronomer) Evidence of Purpose, 1994, p. 23.
It is an error to think that evolution disproves the existence of God, the creator of all there is. And science does not demand atheisms.
The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going. (Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner, biochemist) Life Itself, 1981, p 88.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
emiliano:
If by "creation" you mean the general idea that God created all things, science has no quarrel with that. If you mean that God magically poofed one of each species into existence a few thousand years ago, that no new species ever come into existence, that God destroyed all living things in a flood a couple of years after that, then no, there is no such evidence. That is clearly false, and anyone who has studied the evidence knows that. It's an ancient creation myth, nothing more.
If by "creation" you mean the general idea that God created all things, science has no quarrel with that. If you mean that God magically poofed one of each species into existence a few thousand years ago, that no new species ever come into existence, that God destroyed all living things in a flood a couple of years after that, then no, there is no such evidence. That is clearly false, and anyone who has studied the evidence knows that. It's an ancient creation myth, nothing more.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Why do creationists always use arguments from authority rather than an actual argument?
As for evidence for evolution. Have you tied typing in evidence for evolution into google? Not even once?
Here is Berkeley Universitys page on the topic What is the evidence for evolution?
This was the top google result on my computer what is wrong with yours???
As for evidence for evolution. Have you tied typing in evidence for evolution into google? Not even once?
Here is Berkeley Universitys page on the topic What is the evidence for evolution?
This was the top google result on my computer what is wrong with yours???
David M
Well-Known Member
Creationism (specifically special creation, that things were created ex nihilo) has no evidence to back up the events described and the only way to even get close with literal biblical creationism is to violate the laws of physics repeatedly and ignore all the evidence that it did not happen as described. That does require faith.
Evolution is based on copious evidence of what is happening now and what has happened in the past, all of which operates within the laws of physics. It requires understanding and judgement, not faith.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
The statements of religious people... even scientists, is not evidence for creationism.
What is a "Homin person"?
Does he mean Hominid? if so that means Chimps have an immortal soul.
If he means only those after Chimps... then would he consider Lucy and her species to have a soul?
Yeah, let's look at some of his other quotes shall we?
About ID:
[/quote] they fall short in providing any mechanisms for the efficient causes that primarily engage scientists in our age. ID does not explain the temporal or geographical distribution of species, or the intricate relationships of the DNA coding. ID is interesting as a philosophical idea, but it does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers. [/quote]
He also admits that it isn't evidence that moves him ... but emotion.
but yes, you are right... science doesn't demand atheism. I'm not an atheist. But I realize that 'evidence' for Creators role in the universe comes from within...not without.
It's not scientific.
wa:do
What is a "Homin person"?
Does he mean Hominid? if so that means Chimps have an immortal soul.
If he means only those after Chimps... then would he consider Lucy and her species to have a soul?
Yeah, let's look at some of his other quotes shall we?
About ID:
[/quote] they fall short in providing any mechanisms for the efficient causes that primarily engage scientists in our age. ID does not explain the temporal or geographical distribution of species, or the intricate relationships of the DNA coding. ID is interesting as a philosophical idea, but it does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers. [/quote]
He also admits that it isn't evidence that moves him ... but emotion.
The godâs in the science - The Daily Cardinal
but yes, you are right... science doesn't demand atheism. I'm not an atheist. But I realize that 'evidence' for Creators role in the universe comes from within...not without.
It's not scientific.
wa:do