Evolution vs. Creation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
403

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
juerocalvo wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.

Please tell me what the conclusion to this quote is?

Why don’t you click on this link to learn more about the works of the Leakey family.

http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/foundation/

The Leakey Foundation sure as hell isn’t working to advance the knowledge of “creation science”. This is a good example of how flawed your argument by selective quotation really is.

Exactly, that’s why I found it so interesting that he would say something like this.

Are you trying to tell me it doesn’t mean anything? It’s documented.[/quote]

Sigh…

Even if the quote isn’t out of context - which it is, look at the date. 1990. Hmmm. He says, “To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older.” Well, that was 15 years ago. I’m sure there was more evidence found in that time period. At least give a quote from the past few years.

Also, it appears the the creationists arguing on this thread do not know what science or philosophy even is. Do you know what epistemology is? How about metaphysics? What is this “science” you speak of? The kind of statement “science doesn’t have all the answers” is extremely ignorant. It shows a lack of understanding of where science fits in philosophy and what it does. Comparing God to science, doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s not like God is superman and science is batman and we can have a fight and see who wins. God and science fall under completely different realms of philosophy. Try understanding these concepts, along with evolution, and use up to date information along with ALL the evidence to determine which theory is correct.

I’d also like to define the Fallacy from Ignorance, since it is being used extensively.

Definition:
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, “Lack of proof is not proof.” (p. 59)

Examples:
(i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.

(ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won’t.

(iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn’t prove it, so it must be false.

Proof:
Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true even though we don’t know whether it is or isn’t.

Also, even with evidence lacking in the evolution theory, you would still need to present evidence for creation. And so far (discounting the bible - which is Begging the Question) all of your “evidence” has been disproven. Which leads to a False Dilemma. Just because Creationism and Evolution are the only reigning “theories” at the moment, doesn’t mean that if Evolution is problematic that Creationism must be true.

So get to work understanding these subjects and prove your side. Pointing out flaws (if they even really exist) in evolution in no way disproves evolution. You must do better than that.

You stated that people don’t argue gravity but do argue evolution and therefore something must be wrong with evolution. However, although these are fairly different aspects of science and can’t be compared directly, there are difficulties with gravity. Maybe the reason people accept gravity and not evolution is because of an agenda?

There is nothing wrong with having faith and believing what you want. But once you enter into the realm of evidence and logical induction, you better be prepared to fight with evidence and logic only, not faith. That’s why a lot of people are attacking you - you came into this “argument” proselytizing, instead of trying to determine the truth through evidence and logic.

404

What has turned up in the last 15 years that completely proves this guy’s statement wrong?

Wow. It’s funny how we keep on being “scientific” and you keep on calling us “ignorant”. Is that all you can do is insult people? ZEB was right, typical liberal.

Also, you keep bringing up God. I said to keep God an the Bible out of this. Yet, you still keep reverting back to that. Interesting. I haven’t even mentioned God or the Bible in the last 10 posts. What else do you have besides bashing God and the Bible? Let’s not discuss that anymore.

I never said “science doesn’t have all the answers”, but whoever did say it was correct. To deny that is ignorant, not the other way around like you stated. So why don’t you stop calling the opposing side “ignorant” and start a “discussion”. No more insults.

The problem with proving that God created man is not possible for non believers, you don’t believe in God so its not a possibility in your mind. However, that is not going to stop me from showing in any way that the whole “ape man” evolution idea is unproven, false, and a complete discrace.

You see, I can say the same thing about you. Prove to me that God does not exist, just as how you are telling me to prove how He does exist. None of us would win. It doesn’t matter. I have a message, regardless of whether God is an issue for you or not. Therefore I will continue in my mission to provide information that shows human evolution is false and a bunch of garbage.

Even if I didn’t believe in God, I would still question human evolution. I questioned it while I was growing up in school before I even read the Bible or went to church. So from now on, don’t speak about God or the Bible in this discussion and I won’t either. Deal?

405

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
goldin wrote:
tuffloud wrote:

What has turned up in the last 15 years that completely proves this guy’s statement wrong?[/quote]

Well, if all the evidence recently presented in this thread isn’t enough to convince you then there’s not much I can do. But at least get a more recent quote from this guy. Does he still think the same given the current evidence?

[quote]
Also, it appears the the creationists arguing on this thread do not know what science or philosophy even is. Do you know what epistemology is? How about metaphysics? What is this “science” you speak of? The kind of statement “science doesn’t have all the answers” is extremely ignorant. It shows a lack of understanding of where science fits in philosophy and what it does. Comparing God to science, doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s not like God is superman and science is batman and we can have a fight and see who wins. God and science fall under completely different realms of philosophy. Try understanding these concepts, along with evolution, and use up to date information along with ALL the evidence to determine which theory is correct.

Wow. It’s funny how we keep on being “scientific” and you keep on calling us “ignorant”. Is that all you can do is insult people? ZEB was right, typical liberal.[/quote]

Now who’s attacking? Leave Zeb and political affiliations out of this. For the record you have no idea what religion or political affiliation I follow as I have not listed them. I am coming from a purely scientific view - logic and evidence - political and religious aspects are not required.

Did I actually call you ignorant? No, I asked if you knew what you are talking about. I think that is an honest question. If I were to try and have an argument about something I didn’t know (not that you are, just an example) then people would and should say I don’t know what I am talking about. I only asked the above questions because from reading your posts it appears that you don’t. Care to prove that you do know? Please post in your own words the concepts of epistemology, metaphysics, science, theory, fact, and the current theory of evolution.

[quote]
Also, you keep bringing up God and the Bible. I said to keep God an the Bible out of this. Yet, you still keep reverting back to that. Interesting. I haven’t even mentioned God or the Bible in the last 10 posts. What else do you have besides bashing God and the Bible? Let’s not discuss that anymore.[/quote]

Okay, you’re right. You haven’t talked about it much lately. However, I hardly brought God or the Bible up at all - and I’d like you to point out where I bashed either. That’s getting a little touchy.

[quote]
I never said “science doesn’t have all the answers”, but whoever did say it was correct. To deny that is ignorant, not the other way around like you stated. So why don’t you stop calling the opposing side “ignorant” and “debate”. No more insults.[/quote]

Actually, I think you did, but it doesn’t matter. My point was - the statement “science doesn’t have all the answers” is disregarding the concept of science. And I ask you, if someone really doesn’t know what they are talking about, how do you tell them that without insulting them?

[quote]
The problem with proving that God created man is not possible for non believers, you don’t believe in God so its not a possibility in your mind. However, that is not going to stop me from showing in any way that the whole “ape man” evolution idea is unproven, false, and a complete discrace.[/quote]

Who said I was a non-believer? Who’s bringing up God now? You are free to show us the evidence that the evolution idea is “unproven, false, and a complete disgrace”, but so far, it doesn’t look like your “evidence” is real or accurate. Maybe that is why we’re not accepting your ideas - regardless of God or religion.

[quote]
You see, I can say the same thing about you. Prove to me that God does not exist, just as how you are telling me to prove how He does exist. None of us would win. It doesn’t matter. I have a message, regardless of whether God is an issue for you or not. Therefore I will continue in my mission to provide information that shows human evolution is false and a bunch of garbage.[/quote]

Aha, I don’t have to prove to you that God doesn’t exist, not that I would need to/want to anyway. The burden of proof lies with he who purports the positive. Therefore it is YOU who must prove that God exists. Is is also YOU who has to prove that there is a better theory (intelligent design) than evolution. Pointing out it’s problems is not enough to disprove it. The scientific community has determined that there is enough evidence to inductively reason that evolution is the correct theory. Therefore, in order to prove evolution wrong, you have to show another theory that uses the evidence in a more cohesive complete manner. You can’t do that just by pointing out what is worng with evolution or pointing out top scholars that are skeptical.

Okay, now this is an Appeal to Personal Experience. Because you rejected it after logical conclusion, that means we should too. Leave your personal experiences out of this. I will refrain from talking about God, religion, Bible, as well.

I apoligize if I came off insulting you. It just seemed to me that you didn’t have the correct concepts for the way you were explaining your ideas, so I was wondering if you really knew what those concepts were.

I’m actually pretty ignorant with regards to evolution. I don’t remember hardly any from school, most of what I know I just picked up here on this thread. However, I do know a fair amount of logic and philosophy, and that is where you seemed to me to be off the mark.

406

goldin,

I accept your apology and thank you.

Think about this for a second. The next time you see a case made for a human ancestor, determine what the actual fossil evidence is, and then decide for yourself if the conclusions fit the data. Recently from a piece of one shin bone, the “scientists” told us what this “ancestor” looked like, how he lived, where he lived and how long ago he lived. Decide for yourself if you think that a piece of one shin bone can objectively tell you that much information, or is it someone’s imagination that takes a little data (one shin bone) and turns it into a human ancestor or a “missing link.” (Remember, there is a great variety within a species. A pro football player has bigger thicker shin bones than a child, but they are both human).

407

[quote]goldin wrote:

Also, it appears the the creationists arguing on this thread do not know what science or philosophy even is. Do you know what epistemology is? How about metaphysics? What is this “science” you speak of? The kind of statement “science doesn’t have all the answers” is extremely ignorant. It shows a lack of understanding of where science fits in philosophy and what it does. Comparing God to science, doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s not like God is superman and science is batman and we can have a fight and see who wins. God and science fall under completely different realms of philosophy. Try understanding these concepts, along with evolution, and use up to date information along with ALL the evidence to determine which theory is correct.

I was going to respond to this in particular, but I honestly could not seem to stop laughing long enough! I don?t question your Intelligence just you?re reasoning, unfortunately for us all, there not one and the same. What?s more obvious even through casual observance Creation or Evolution? Pause?. Would you have reasonable people believe that although life it self evolved it however requires creativity to sustain it. Since there has been nothing yet today that can be produce of any usefulness without design or creation, why? Would not creation be the most logical of conclusions in light of your flawed convoluted evolutionary theory? Hey like they say in the stock market cut your losses I feel cheated too, to think I actually paid someone teach me some crap they claimed was science while they were making it up as they went a long in my quest for higher education. Any body who?s consider both with an open mind who?s out selling evolution its because its easy in light of its marketing machine that controls the education system, Creationist there out making cold calls who wants that!

408

quote-
I’m actually pretty ignorant with regards to evolution. I don’t remember hardly any from school, most of what I know I just picked up here on this thread. However, I do know a fair amount of logic and philosophy, and that is where you seemed to me to be off the mark. -quote

Goldin,

I know a thing or two about evolution and I can assure he knows little to nothing about it. He also ignores any post that tries to nail him down on specific points of his critizism.

Tuffloud, do I think you are ignorant? I don?t know. Do I think you are ignorant when it comes to evolution? Hell, yeah! You don?t know nada, zip, niente, nothing, null, about it except that you don?t like it.

I actually admire the chuzpe to open a discussion about a topic you know nothing about. But that you are even posting arguments for evolution because you think they are arguments against it, that made me laugh.

In Vienna, a lot of economy professors today were communists/marxists in the 60?s. The reason why they teach economy now is that they knew more about economics than proponents of capitalism, because they believed that knowledge is important if you try to debunk a theory (or a set of theories in their case).

If I compare their approach to yours, you look like a child that has its fingers in its ears and singing very loud because god forbid, it could hear anything that might change its opinions. That?s not only ignorance, that is willful ignorance, that is the burning desire to stay ignorant and you are way beyond an age where this is considered to be cute.

However, thank you for this discussion, I learned a lot.

409

Orion,

Do you even realize how much evidence and information I have posted? If you think something is wrong, prove it. I have made numerous posts recently and someone is yet to actually say anything but “your ignorant, thats wrong” without giving any evidence that its wrong. I’m getting sick of you calling me ignorant. All the postings with links to pictures of bones does not prove that human evolution took place. Its a fantasy, an incomplete little story, so they fill whatever they can in with imaginative hopes and dreams. Why don’t you stop calling people ignorant and actually prove something yourself. All you people can do is sit back and call every post that I make ignorant. You throw that word around like its all you got. That’s your argument: ignorant this, ignorant that. Try something else to get your message across. Stop acting like you no everthing about science and actually give me something that proves your point.

410

[quote]vroom wrote:
I have read a lot of your other posts. I have much respect for you and appreciate your support. Thank you sir.

I smell a crusade! Who’s with me?[/quote]

I think that might be your bad breath backing up on you :slight_smile:

411

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Do you even realize how much evidence and information I have posted?[/quote]

There is one fundamental difference between evolution and creation: the presumption of God.

Let us presume, for a moment, that we know there is no God. Just for the sake of argument. Now look at the two propositions: that life evolved on its own, or that life was created by intelligent design. In the absence of God, intelligent design is a ludicrous theory. Therefore, we must conclude that life evolved on its own, because while this is still unlikely – it is nowhere NEAR as unlikely as intelligent design.

Now let us flip the coin, and presume that there is indeed a God. Again, just for the sake of argument. Consider the two propositions now: that life evolved without God’s assistance, or that life was created by God. The idea that God would not assist with the evolution of life is every bit as ludicrous as the idea that life could be intelligently designed without a God. So here, we have the opposite conclusion: that God created life, because the alternative is immensely less likely.

So, in other words, it all hinges on your belief in God. If there is a God, evolution is a stupid idea. If there isn’t, creation is a stupid idea. You can probably tell which side I’m on just by where I put my capital letters.

But here’s the real kicker. Imagine that God didn’t actually create in the sense of saying “there shall be this giraffe and that horse and these sheep”, but that He instead created by defining the rules of an evolutionary process. Imagine that this evolutionary process was largely unmolested by God, and merely observed with the foreknowledge that the system would inevitably produce the specifically desired results.

What is the difference, in this case, between “intelligent design” and “pure coincidence”? Is there a difference? Which has occurred? How can you tell? What if an evolutionary process occurred by chance, and when God observed that process He decided to create His own similar process to improve upon it? Could God Himself be the result of an evolutionary process?

Remember, the authors of the bible were primitive and ignorant by today’s standards, but they also directly experienced the events of the time in a way we can only vaguely confirm. The bible reflects only what they think they experienced, but it is likely to be a far more accurate account than we could construct without such a record.

412

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,

Did you actually read the four words after the word “dolt”?

It’s pretty useless to claim someone is doing X, when they themselves say X is what the heck they are doing.

Maybe you are a dolt?[/quote]

You are actually starting to calm down a bit I see. It took you something like 37 words before you went to a personal insult this time…congrats man! Go for 50 words next time. A little at a time and before you know it you will be like the rest of us (well most of us). :slight_smile:

413

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Orion,

Do you even realize how much evidence and information I have posted? If you think something is wrong, prove it. I have made numerous posts recently and someone is yet to actually say anything but “your ignorant, thats wrong” without giving any evidence that its wrong. I’m getting sick of you calling me ignorant. All the postings with links to pictures of bones does not prove that human evolution took place. Its a fantasy, an incomplete little story, so they fill whatever they can in with imaginative hopes and dreams. Why don’t you stop calling people ignorant and actually prove something yourself. All you people can do is sit back and call every post that I make ignorant. You throw that word around like its all you got. That’s your argument: ignorant this, ignorant that. Try something else to get your message across. Stop acting like you no everthing about science and actually give me something that proves your point.[/quote]

Tuffloud,

I didn?t call you ignorant per se. I called you ignorant when it comes to evolution. My reason for this is that you keep making claims about evolution that neodarwinists a) never have made or b) that were dealt with long ago.

As you would know, if you had studied evolution with the same perseverance as the bible.

Three of your questions in your HUUUUGE post above, I have tried to answer, yet you will undoubtedly bring them up again as if nothing happened.

And, last but not least, it is not possible to prove you wrong. That is the very same reason creationism is not a scientific theory. Ready? Here it comes:

Your theory is not falsifiable

(I hope this is the right english word).

Even if it was completely bonkers there is no way to prove it wrong. In order to prove that you?re wrong I would have to prove beyond any doubt that

a) There is no god (how can you possibly prove a negative?).Prove to me there are no unicorns. See the problem? But orion,orion noone has ever seen one. So what, they hide very well.

b) or that there is a god and that evolution was his way of creation (perfectly possible). Unfortunately He does not talk to me. As for the argument, there has to be a God because everything in our universe sustains life. Not so. It is called the strong vs the weak anthropic principle and this discussion is veeery old.

At the very second where a creationist makes a theory that CAN be proven WRONG if it should be wrong, it?s scientific.

As long as you can answer every critizism with " he?s allmighty and works in misterious ways" your theory cannot be proven wrong. Therefore it is not scientific.

414

darklock,

good point, I never saw it from that perspective.

415

Moron!

There, that should help up the ratio a bit…

416

[quote]vroom wrote:
Moron!

There, that should help up the ratio a bit…[/quote]

Yes indeed! That would be one personal insult for only 10 words. Keep it up vroom all of your comments are becoming less and less relevant.

(That should get at least one personal attack for every 7 words…stay tuned)

417

Am I your favorite pastime Zeb? Maybe you should get a hobby…

418

[quote]vroom wrote:
Am I your favorite pastime Zeb? Maybe you should get a hobby…[/quote]

I was about to ask you the same question.

By the way, 12 words and no personal attack…Although the tone of those 12 words cannot be called productive.

419

[quote]orion wrote:
Your theorie is not falsifiable

(I hope this is the right english word).
[/quote]

It is, and you’re right. The theory can’t be falsified. Most creationists mistake this for truth, when it more commonly means you have a bad argument.

And creationists do, in fact, have a bad argument. The argument is that evolution is wrong because it’s not in the bible, and what is in the bible is creation. They are using the evidence in their own book, written by their own fellow believers, to demonstrate that what they believe is true. This is very much like writing “He is 100% correct” on a napkin and using it to support any old arbitrary argument – stupid, but somewhat amusing to watch.

The two camps need to eventually recognise that neither of them can convince the other of anything, and stop trying. As long as you’re still trying to convince people that one answer or the other is right, all you’re really saying is that you don’t fully understand the question.

420

Hahahaha! Yes, you should be the “tone police”.

Goodness knows how much you like to push everyone to act the way you want them to.

421

Use common sense, evolution makes sense, creation doesn’t.
And don’t get me wrong I’m a roman catholic and I belive in God but maybe the mutation that made us evolve from monkey like creatures into humans was triggered by outside factors

422

[quote]vroom wrote:
Although the tone of those 12 words cannot be called productive.

Hahahaha! Yes, you should be the “tone police”.

Goodness knows how much you like to push everyone to act the way you want them to.
[/quote]

Oh…I don’t think that suggesting an adult refrain from peronal attacks on an Internet forum is such a bad idea.

Give it a shot :slight_smile: