Creation, true, false, or unsure?

[georg jetson]

Because there are certain types of people that just don't care what the evidence says. They don't care how many links I post, or cites I cite, they will reject them all and cling to their belief. No one here is actually interested in learning about evolution, if they were they would be willing to do their own research on the subject and wouldn't spout nonsense like "If evolution is true then why are there still monkeys" or "Why aren't all the plants humans now since we are the best". Those who are unwilling to learn or don't care enough to find out what they don't agree with on their own they are IMO stupid. And as the old saying goes, you can't fix stupid.

First, this thread is about Creation. Secondly, you assume to much about the education of those with whom you're discussing. I was learning the basics of evolution before you were born and had spent quit a bit of time in the 90's making myself a bit of an expert. I've probably forgotten more than you know about evolution. There have been a very few participants here who might be considered stupid. For the most part though, you won't find a brighter bunch of gun nuts. ;D

All of the evidence you can cite will be "circumstantial". I hold that type of evidence suspect when trying to discover the past. As you have correctly stated, science will reject a theory until is is proven wrong, and that is the limitation of science. It is wrong most of the time. Get me something that is observable and then we'll talk proof.

 

[Mantioch]

There can't be evidence for the story of creation without being in direct conflict with the theory of evolution. They would be required to merge and make a new theory. There is a reason that intelligent design wasn't considered worthy to be taught in science class.

No, its for the same reason kids are taught that guns are evil. It runs counter to agendas.

This has been fun. I'm out.

 

[georg jetson]

There can't be evidence for the story of creation without being in direct conflict with the theory of evolution. They would be required to merge and make a new theory. There is a reason that intelligent design wasn't considered worthy to be taught in science class.

Yes! Liberalism! Wow. That's the second time that has come up in this thread.

Weird.

 

[Citizen]

Earlier in the thread I stated that evolution could very well be by design of a god (I don't personally believe this, but I hold that it could be a possibility.) However, the differences between the story of creation (what I'm arguing against) and the theory of evolution (what I'm arguing for) can not both be true at the same time. The story of creation has 0 evidence, evolution has tons of evidence. If you take the position that evolution is part of an overall creator then fine, I can't disprove that just as it can't be proven. I can however argue against the creation story.

I understand.

But, why would you argue against the creation story? Don't get sucked into an argument in the first place. I don't mind if creationists want to believe the creation story. I don't even mind if they try to force it down my throat. I neither have a compulsion to force them to accept my ideas, nor a compulsion to reject theirs. Good grief, its holy to them. As long as they're not threatening to burn me at the stake for heresy, I'm more than happy to respect their beliefs. (Heh, heh, heh. Which also means I'm in a position to insist they respect mine.)

 

[ADobbs1989]

I understand.

But, why would you argue against the creation story? Don't get sucked into an argument in the first place. I don't mind if creationists want to believe the creation story. I don't even mind if they try to force it down my throat. I neither have a compulsion to force them to accept my ideas, nor a compulsion to reject theirs. Good grief, its holy to them. As long as they're not threatening to burn me at the stake for heresy, I'm more than happy to respect their beliefs. (Heh, heh, heh. Which also means I'm in a position to insist they respect mine.)

The same reason I would argue with someone that thinks gun crime is higher now than used to be. Or that more guns equals more crime. Because it's is 100% opposite of what we know and understand to be true.

 

[ADobbs1989]

No, its for the same reason kids are taught that guns are evil. It runs counter to agendas.

This has been fun. I'm out.

No, it's because the court rules that ID wasn't science, nor scientific. It was religion, and religion has no place within a science class. Not sure why you would be against kids being taught that guns were evil (which isn't based in scientific fact) when you would be for kids being taught ID (which isn't based in scientific fact).

 

[Citizen]

The same reason I would argue with someone that thinks gun crime is higher now than used to be. Or that more guns equals more crime. Because it's is 100% opposite of what we know and understand to be true.

Hmmmm. I think you're setting yourself up for a lot of friction. What other subjects do you argue just because you know truth to lie somewhere else? Do you always get on a "truth kick" with every subject, or just certain subjects?

Trust me, you'll get further faster if you stop telling the other guy "you're wrong; you're truths aren't true." At least on this subject anyway.

 

[WalkingWolf]

No thanks. I'll cite my sources as soon as the religious can cite their evidence for their claims. I'm not going to go out of my way to do their research for them, especially when you can't fix stupid.

BULL HOCKEY, YOU made a claim without providing a source which counter to how things are done here. Claiming a fact then refusing to back it up with a site is pure cowardice. As the chickens would say "Bawk, Bawk, Bawk, chicken poop".

 

[ADobbs1989]

Hmmmm. I think you're setting yourself up for a lot of friction. What other subjects do you argue just because you know truth to lie somewhere else? Do you always get on a "truth kick" with every subject, or just certain subjects?

Trust me, you'll get further faster if you stop telling the other guy "you're wrong; you're truths aren't true." At least on this subject anyway.

I'm not in a race to see how far I can get...but maybe every time the discussion is brought up I can get 1 person to actually go learn about evolution for themselves. If the beliefs we hold aren't true (at least to the best of human knowledge) what's the point in having them, and aren't they technically detrimental to human progress? I have MANY opinions on things, but when it comes to scientific matters, yes, I do get on a "truth kick". Science has proven itself to be the best source of knowledge on any subject at any particular time. It might be different in 100 years, but it will still hold true at that time and for the amount of knowledge we have at that point. Will we ever possess all knowledge? I don't know, but personally I sure want to be on the forefront of that knowledge instead of holding on to incorrect assumptions from thousands of years ago. If everyone was that way we wouldn't even be able to argue about it like this.

 

[ADobbs1989]

BULL HOCKEY, YOU made a claim without providing a source which counter to how things are done here. Claiming a fact then refusing to back it up with a site is pure cowardice. As the chickens would say "Bawk, Bawk, Bawk, chicken poop".

I've seen a lot of other claims being made without providing a source, care to say anything to those people? Or just to me since my posts differ from what you think? As I said I'll cite when others cite, and circular citations such as the bible do not count.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I've seen a lot of other claims being made without providing a source, care to say anything to those people? Or just to me since my posts differ from what you think? As I said I'll cite when others cite, and circular citations such as the bible do not count.

What others do has no bearing on your cowardice~~~"Bawk, Bawk, Bawk"

 

[Citizen]

I'm not in a race to see how far I can get...but maybe every time the discussion is brought up I can get 1 person to actually go learn about evolution for themselves. If the beliefs we hold aren't true (at least to the best of human knowledge) what's the point in having them, and aren't they technically detrimental to human progress? I have MANY opinions on things, but when it comes to scientific matters, yes, I do get on a "truth kick". Science has proven itself to be the best source of knowledge on any subject at any particular time. It might be different in 100 years, but it will still hold true at that time and for the amount of knowledge we have at that point. Will we ever possess all knowledge? I don't know, but personally I sure want to be on the forefront of that knowledge instead of holding on to incorrect assumptions from thousands of years ago. If everyone was that way we wouldn't even be able to argue about it like this.

Great! Just do it without arguing, and you'll get further.

I'm not arguing whether untruths are detrimental. I'm arguing about how you are going to successfully get truer-truths accepted.

Here's the knife: by your own statement, untruths are detrimental. By the importance you yourself assigned, its therefore just as important you get your evolutionary truths accepted. If it really is that important, you owe it to them and yourself to present those truths in a way that the listener does not reject them out of hand as, for example, in an argument. You owe it to them and yourself to present those truths in way that prompts them to think about that truth rather than be on the defensive and think only about a counter-argument.

 

[david.ross]

What's a meme?

Bigoted or arrogant? Am I arrogant about it....possibly....but you have yet to disprove it.

Then who/what is at the top of the food chain?

It's not your fault and I'm not calling you bigoted. It's often teachers which are ignorant and bigoted. Go some reason on "apex predators." The whole notion of the "top of the food chain" really shouldn't be used as a teaching tool, it gives a false impression of superiority.

Think of it like this, throw all the most dangerous predators from Africa in the same room, which one is on the "top of the food chain"? All of them share the "top," there is no single predator in first place. Sure you can judge by factors like speed, claws, teeth, strength, etc but each has it's own levels of severity.

 

[eye95]

Oh, just keep persuading. Just keep gently drawing attention to the facts in order to build agreement.

I see no conflict between creation and evolution.

Who said creation started and stopped with the singularity? Seems to me that if an agency felt creative enough to create an entire universe, that agency would be pretty likely to want to continue being creative. I don't know about God, but I get pretty bored just sitting around after only a few minutes. I can easily imagine Him wanting an ongoing creative project. Evolution seems like just the ticket to keep a Supreme Being from boredom.

I see no conflict between evolution and creation either. Or between the Big Bang an creation. Hell, I taught science and taught the physics of the Big Bang. While there is no proof of the Big Bang, it is a reasonable explanation of the observations we see today. But that is all that science can really do when looking backward. Again, science is most effective as a forward looking exercise. It is not really good at looking backwards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

I understand.

But, why would you argue against the creation story? Don't get sucked into an argument in the first place. I don't mind if creationists want to believe the creation story. I don't even mind if they try to force it down my throat. I neither have a compulsion to force them to accept my ideas, nor a compulsion to reject theirs. Good grief, its holy to them. As long as they're not threatening to burn me at the stake for heresy, I'm more than happy to respect their beliefs. (Heh, heh, heh. Which also means I'm in a position to insist they respect mine.)

I would never threaten to burn you for heresy. I would just do it. Watch your back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Citizen]

It's not your fault and I'm not calling you bigoted. It's often teachers which are ignorant and bigoted. Go some reason on "apex predators." The whole notion of the "top of the food chain" really shouldn't be used as a teaching tool, it gives a false impression of superiority.

Think of it like this, throw all the most dangerous predators from Africa in the same room, which one is on the "top of the food chain"? All of them share the "top," there is no single predator in first place. Sure you can judge by factors like speed, claws, teeth, strength, etc but each has it's own levels of severity.

Yeah. I had a third-grade teacher like that. Put her in a room with predators, and give her a ruler. Her level of severity with a ruler was just unbelievable!

 

[ADobbs1989]

I see no conflict between evolution and creation either. Or between the Big Bang an creation. Hell, I taught science and taught the physics of the Big Bang. While there is no proof of the Big Bang, it is a reasonable explanation of the observations we see today. But that is all that science can really do when looking backward. Again, science is most effective as a forward looking exercise. It is not really good at looking backwards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

IF, and I do highly emphasize that word, you did teach science it must have been in Alabama or at least another area of the deep south. With dooseys like:

There is all kinds of evidence for evolution. Heck, it has been witnessed.

The little problem is they don't tell you that there are two kinds of evolution.

1. Intraspecial evolution. Chicken 2.0. A bigger, better, and tastier chicken.

2. Extraspecial evolution. Chicken lays egg. Out pops God-knows-what, with a different set of chromosomes, that is viable, that meets and mates with another God-knows-what with the same basic set of chromosomes, and Adam-and-Eves a whole new and viable species.

There is all kinds of evidence for 1. There is no evidence for 2.

When folks say they believe in evolution, ask them to qualify. I know 1 happens, so I believe in evolution. Do I believe man evolved from another species? I see no evidence of that. I see that man 10.0 is the current version and there is evidence of man 5.0 - 9.7. Man 5.0 looked a lot like an ape, but was a man with the same essential set of chromosomes man 10.0 has.

You obviously have a horrible grasp on science, and I fear for those whom you were the teacher of.

 

[eye95]

You ain't worth talking to when all you can do is resort to ad hominem. There are scads of folks in this thread disagreeing like adults. I don't need to correspond with someone acting like a child.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[ADobbs1989]

Great! Just do it without arguing, and you'll get further.

I'm not arguing whether untruths are detrimental. I'm arguing about how you are going to successfully get truer-truths accepted.

Here's the knife: by your own statement, untruths are detrimental. By the importance you yourself assigned, its therefore just as important you get your evolutionary truths accepted. If it really is that important, you owe it to them and yourself to present those truths in a way that the listener does not reject them out of hand as, for example, in an argument. You owe it to them and yourself to present those truths in way that prompts them to think about that truth rather than be on the defensive and think only about a counter-argument.

When in contact with a group of people who admit they don't know much about the subject and are open and willing to learn about it, you're right. When you're with a group that doesn't care, nor want to care about what is true then there is no point in going out of my way. As soon as someone says something completely untrue about the subject (like men came from monkeys, or plants should be evolving into humans) then use their ignorance of the subject to prove you wrong then move on to act as if your stupid for believing something so ridiculous, they have proven their intent, and their unwillingness to learn. I will argue with them all day (because it's usually funny), but I will not waste my time trying to convey my message nicely.

 

[ADobbs1989]

You ain't worth talking to when all you can do is resort to ad hominem. There are scads of folks in this thread disagreeing like adults. I don't need to correspond with someone acting like a child.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Sorry you don't like it when someone uses something you said that shows your complete ignorance on a subject, then uses it against you later when you claim knowledge of science. I'm not a fool though, you're not moving on. You just seem to think typing that puts you at a higher moral ground.