Creatonism vs. Evolution?

Archon zekrish

Archon zekrish

Great king lord
Hail from the land of blondes and polarbears everyone!

There has been enourmous debates about creationism being thought in US schools. i'm not taking any side in the argument as i'm only starting it.
But isn't both evolution and creationism just diffrent views of how the universe, life and the world was created? None of the Theroys can be tested according to the scientifict methods: Observe, Test, Repeat

Evolution:
We can not observe it it takes place under to long time spanns. We have never seen evolution.

We can't test it as it still takes place under to long time.

Reapeting is impossible since we can't do it the first time.

Creationism:

We can't observe it, miracles has happend (if you belive in them) but still this is a matter of belife not science.

We can't test it; we are not God

Reapeting is also impossible


So who is right?
let the debate begin!!
 
We can not observe it it takes place under to long time spanns. We have never seen evolution.
Click to expand...

Ring species, speciation has been observed, and, finally, transitional fossils. It's like going to ground zero of an explosion and denying that the explosion occurred because you didn't personally see it.

We can't test it as it still takes place under to long time.
Click to expand...

Sure we can! It can be falsified, see:


It can be falsified. Every example shows potential falsifications, and in general, it could be falsified by the following (just an example):

Spoiler:
There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

* a static fossil record;
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
* observations of organisms being created.


Reapeting is impossible since we can't do it the first time.
Click to expand...

We can still find more and more evidence for it.
 
jnec000 said:
Ring species, speciation has been observed, and, finally, transitional fossils. It's like going to ground zero of an explosion and denying that the explosion occurred because you didn't personally see it.

We can still find more and more evidence for it.
Click to expand...

Well we have never seen evolution take place. (i assume you mean specialtion) We have only found the animals that way.
Fossils; how can we define the age of tem? and just because an animal dies it dosen't mean that it evolved.
 
Archon zekrish said:
Well we have never seen evolution take place. (i assume you mean specialtion) We have only found the animals that way.
Fossils; how can we define the age of tem? and just because an animal dies it dosen't mean that it evolved.
Click to expand...

On top of what sadated pointed out: are you aware of what a ring species is? It's a perfect example of evolution in practice.

 
I am going to be insulted as a person if this debate actually continues. It should by default be ended with the fact that evolution has scientific evidence on its side, an empirical method of study and is supported by science which is the vehicle of empirical science.

On the other hand you have creationism, juxtaposing a religious belief and science without using empirical methodology, and only criticising what evolution has yet to explain.

It should follow that creationism doesn't offer a scientific explanation for what evolution aims to answer as a theory - a topic which creationists won't discuss fairly since they insist on taking the concept of theory as a method of fact - and does not either use the same basis or attempt to answer the same question.

So they are not comparable as one is based on use of evidence and the empirical method of science, and because the other is based on composing a critique alone of the theory of evolution, wherein the two first tools of science are employed. It is therefore a critique of evolution for those who are not satisfied with it.

It follows too then that it is not a scientific theory, and that it is not comparable.

For instance, structural functionalism and feminist theory in sociology are both theoretical points of view. But structural functionalism's opinionated arguments in socialisation do not make it equal in regards to discussing the subject. It is only a critique of a social science.

Similarly, creationism simply critiques, without the support of empirical evidence, but rather with the use of scepticism, the truths which evolutionary biology take for granted.

To put an end to this, since people just won't stop comparing the two and insisting that they are comparable, let's hear from a Catholic biologist at Brown University bring the house down around your ears. Listen, watch and learn. He will explain that the support of creationism, intellectual design, is faulty and has in fact quite a few things to learn about science as a whole.

1. Link.
 
This cartoon describes the fundamental difference between creationism and evolution.



Also we do see evolution within our lifetimes. Thats why bacteria become resistant to drugs and antibiotics and also why insects gradually become resistant to pesticides.
 
A creationism vs evolution debate? It must be Tuesday. :sag

But what's "Reapeting" mean? I'd think you meant 'repeating' only that would mean you said repeating evolution is impossible... even though it happens all the time. MRSA for instance, wouldn't be such a fucking problem if it hadn't evolved from lesser problematic bacteria. EVolution happens. That's a fact. It's been recorded, it's being observed now, and there's simply no refuting that.

The only problem is that a lot of people, namely religious who have been spoonfed bible stories as literal truth, can't seem to grasp that the evolution we witness on a small scale has compounded effects over longer periods of time, despite the ample evidence of fossil records and carbon dating. The phenomenon of evolution is so undeniable that they have to kid themselves into thinking there are two types of evolution - micro and macro - in order to cling to silly, outdated beliefs that were around the same time people thought the earth was flat and held up by pillars.

This discussion is a no brainer. But still, there are some people around here with a distinct lack of capability for independent, rational thought, so this discussion will likely devolve into bible quotes and christian-bashing and baby-eating, so I'll take my exit now.
 
Toby_Christ said:
I am going to be insulted as a person if this debate actually continues. It should by default be ended with the fact that evolution has scientific evidence on its side, an empirical method of study and is supported by science which is the vehicle of empirical science.

On the other hand you have creationism, juxtaposing a religious belief and science without using empirical methodology, and only criticising what evolution has yet to explain.

It should follow that creationism doesn't offer a scientific explanation for what evolution aims to answer as a theory - a topic which creationists won't discuss fairly since they insist on taking the concept of theory as a method of fact - and does not either use the same basis or attempt to answer the same question.

So they are not comparable as one is based on use of evidence and the empirical method of science, and because the other is based on composing a critique alone of the theory of evolution, wherein the two first tools of science are employed. It is therefore a critique of evolution for those who are not satisfied with it.

It follows too then that it is not a scientific theory, and that it is not comparable.

For instance, structural functionalism and feminist theory in sociology are both theoretical points of view. But structural functionalism's opinionated arguments in socialisation do not make it equal in regards to discussing the subject. It is only a critique of a social science.

Similarly, creationism simply critiques, without the support of empirical evidence, but rather with the use of scepticism, the truths which evolutionary biology take for granted.

To put an end to this, since people just won't stop comparing the two and insisting that they are comparable, let's hear from a Catholic biologist at Brown University bring the house down around your ears. Listen, watch and learn. He will explain that the support of creationism, intellectual design, is faulty and has in fact quite a few things to learn about science as a whole.

1. Link.
Click to expand...

Everyone should go see that video. It explains in great clarity why creationism should not be taught in science classes and deals with a lot issues creationist come up with against evolution.
 
from your description i conclude that Evolution=Creation. If you think about it, it does seem more fitting of God to give usthe ability to adapt and progress. it would be cruel if he didn't
 
Evolution is a scientific theory whereas Creationism is a fairytale with no evidence at all. While, there maybe a long way to go to prove evolution, creationism will never be proven. Therefore, evolution>>>>>>>>>creationism.
 
Creationism as in "six days...poof" or a conscious force as a basis behind life?

And evolution does exist. That is about as undeniable as gravity, well maybe not that undeniable, but it is true.
 
raisin-gun said:
from your description i conclude that Evolution=Creation. If you think about it, it does seem more fitting of God to give usthe ability to adapt and progress. it would be cruel if he didn't
Click to expand...

Nobody has actually disappointed me more than you in this thread. How about actually debating in context to what other people have posted rather than putting ethics and un-supported suspicions out there in what is meant to be a debate?
 
raisin-gun said:
from your description i conclude that Evolution=Creation. If you think about it, it does seem more fitting of God to give usthe ability to adapt and progress. it would be cruel if he didn't
Click to expand...

Do you by chance mean evolutionary creationism (also known as theistic evolution)? Well, its actually a belief in some of the current christian denominations. However, thats what it remains, a belief, usually used to unite evolutionism and creationism. Could it possibly be true? Perhaps, however, the debate would move towards proving or disproving the existance of God, and that isn't the topic of this thread.

Toby_Christ said:
Nobody has actually disappointed me more than you in this thread. How about actually debating in context to what other people have posted rather than putting ethics and un-supported suspicions out there in what is meant to be a debate?
Click to expand...

Easy there Toby :wink. You're going at it a little strong, though I would agree with you.
If you want to bring up another theory raisin-gun, then bring some possible facts or arguments to back it. Regardless, I think pretty much everyone here has made the point that evolution is alot more plausible then creation on its own.
 
Evolution is observable :facepalm PERIOD

Microevolution can be observed all the time... Sometimes even Macroevolution (Green Peppered Moth)
 
School boy : Why is it raining outside teacher?

Professor: Well billy lets try and use science to figuer it out I may be because of the sun and evaporation.

Religious zealot: NO THATS HAPPENING BECAUSE OF CHEESE!!! CHEESE IS THE ONLY THING THAT COULD CAUSE THAT TO HAPPEN!

Billy: but I don't see any cheese


Zealot: THATS BECAUSE IT'S INVISIBLE CHEESE! YOU CAN'T SEE THE CHEESE UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN THE CHEESE!

Billy: but that don't make sense

Zealot: YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT IT'S NOT CHEESE THEREFORE IT IS CHEESE!!!!
 
Toby_Christ said:
To put an end to this, since people just won't stop comparing the two and insisting that they are comparable, let's hear from a Catholic biologist at Brown University bring the house down around your ears. Listen, watch and learn. He will explain that the support of creationism, intellectual design, is faulty and has in fact quite a few things to learn about science as a whole.

1. Link.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, they start with having a *prayer*.
"We pray that we would be guided to have your wisdom and your insight so that we can consider these issues with humility but also with the knowledge that you want us to seek the truth."

I thought we we're going to hear a scientist, obviously it's just a rival church. =/
 
makeoutparadise2 said:
School boy : Why is it raining outside teacher?

Professor: Well billy lets try and use science to figuer it out I may be because of the sun and evaporation.

Religious zealot: NO THATS HAPPENING BECAUSE OF CHEESE!!! CHEESE IS THE ONLY THING THAT COULD CAUSE THAT TO HAPPEN!

Billy: but I don't see any cheese


Zealot: THATS BECAUSE IT'S INVISIBLE CHEESE! YOU CAN'T SEE THE CHEESE UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN THE CHEESE!

Billy: but that don't make sense

Zealot: YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT IT'S NOT CHEESE THEREFORE IT IS CHEESE!!!!
Click to expand...

I'm confused. You're a Buddhist and using such a crude analogy to discredit religion (crazy religion, but religion nonetheless)?

Evolution is a fact people. So if you feel threatened by it, then you need a new religion or a lack of one.
 
Shevek said:
Wait a minute, they start with having a *prayer*.
"We pray that we would be guided to have your wisdom and your insight so that we can consider these issues with humility but also with the knowledge that you want us to seek the truth."

I thought we we're going to hear a scientist, obviously it's just a rival church. =/
Click to expand...

Um, did you continue the clip? Thats just a reverend of a lutheran church who has a phd in physics, he's not Ken Miller. Ken Miller is the guy who start to speak at 1:45. Wait...were you being serious, or am I just tired and missing some kind of joke or sarcasm?

Anyways, the catholic church stance on evolutionism is fairly neutral. All catholic schools teach evolution (and I can speak for myself considering I went to one.), and the reverend sounds like he believes in some form of evolutionary creationism.
 
II Xion II said:
I'm confused. You're a Buddhist and using such a crude analogy to discredit religion (crazy religion, but religion nonetheless)?

Evolution is a fact people. So if you feel threatened by it, then you need a new religion or a lack of one.
Click to expand...

Religion is good and all but what I was saying is it should not be put into science class room because it really gets annoying when someone is trying to push religion on people that might not even want it and it also reminds me of England in the dark ages where the church manifested itslef in all matters of life and if some one brought up a topic such as evolution, they would throw him in the stocks and be treated as an out cast. Thats why we have an amendment to stop that SEPARATION FROM CHURCH AND STATE and it just seems the church is saying if you believe in evolution you don't believe in god
which is not true for me I believe spiritually and science work together
and people should not be saying that I have to chose one or the other besides my faith dose not say that the earth was created in seven days.

as for my faith
The Buddha typically retained a pointed silence in regard to these sorts of questions, so much so that at one point he was directly asked how the universe and life came to be and simply refused to answer. This refusal to answer should not be interpreted to imply ignorance-- there were competing theories at the time which the Buddha had undoubtedly heard of. Rather, this non-response is usually understood to mean that the question is irrelevant to Buddhist theory. One does not need to know the origin of life, nor agree with Buddha's position on scientific topics, in order to become awakened.
Click to expand...
"There comes a time, Vasettha, when, after the lapse of a long, long period, this world died. And when this happens, beings have mostly been reborn into the Realm of Radiance [as devas]; and there they dwell, made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. There comes also a time, Vasettha, when sooner or later this world begins to re-evolve. When this happens, beings who had deceased from the World of Radiance usually come to life as humans...now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vasettha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savours was spread out in the waters, even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear."

Because the Buddha seems to present a model of cosmology wherein the universe expands and contracts over extremely long periods of time, this description has been found by some to be consistent with the expanding universe model and Big Bang.
The Buddha seems to be saying here that the universe expands outward, reaches a estabilizing point, and then reverts its motion back toward a central point resulting in its destruction, this process again to be repeated infinitely. Throughout this expanding and contracting process, the objects found within the universe undergo periods of development and change over a long stretch of time, according to the environment in which they find themselves. Following this passage above, the Buddha goes on to say that the "beings" he described in this paragraph become attached to an earthlike planet, get reborn there, and remain there for the duration of the life. As a consequence of this, physical characteristics change and evolutionary changes takes place. This is often interpreted as a very rough theory of evolution. Furthermore, the Aggañña Sutta presents water as pre-existent to earthlike planets, with the planet forming with water and the life moving from the water onto the earth. Buddha does not talk about a specific earth, but about earthlike planets in general. Buddhists tacitly accept the theory of evolution
Click to expand...

 
AbnormallyNormal said:
creationism doesnt belong in any science class.... but perhaps a sociology or psychology class instead
Click to expand...
Not even psychology or sociology. The theories of those subjects at least have some scientific/logical basis. Creationism should be in English Literature or something.
 
OrOcHiMaRu SaMa [807];11423905 said:
Not even psychology or sociology. The theories of those subjects at least have some scientific/logical basis. Creationism should be in English Literature or something.
Click to expand...

And, even if it is there, it needs to be beside all of the other mythologies.
 
Shevek said:
Wait a minute, they start with having a *prayer*.
"We pray that we would be guided to have your wisdom and your insight so that we can consider these issues with humility but also with the knowledge that you want us to seek the truth."

I thought we we're going to hear a scientist, obviously it's just a rival church. =/
Click to expand...

I assume you must have stopped watching at that point, because there is nothing religious or theistic about the main talk. Ken Miller is a christian and obviously comfortable with his faith, but being a biologist he's very familiar with evolution and he is under no illusion that the creationism is anything but a religious doctrine trying supplant science. He shoots down all the main creationist arguments with facts and scientific research and goes a long way to pointing out the motives behind creationists and their flawed 'scientific method'.

It will be common sense to a lot of us, but everyone should watch that lecture and hopefully they will understand firstly that creationism is NOT science and should not be treated as such, nor is it even remotely supported by present facts, but secondly, that religion is compatible with science. Just because some fundamentalist pressure groups are trying to push religious doctrine into science does not mean that their mentality of science vs religion should rub off on the rest of us. Plenty of religious people believe in evolution, but the divisive tactics of creationists are alienating them and forcing them to choose between their god and science, and as Miller says, that's neither necessary nor fair.
 
I would like to point out another thread that deals with Evolution vs Creationism.

War on Science
[BSS]_kimikiss_pure_rouge_-_03_[XviD]

Distracted makes several good posts and arguments that support evolution and discredit creationism.
 
Ammaeretti it's only those few who seem to be able to understand that sceince is sceince and religion is religion that can both be sceintific and religous.

I hate mixing them because guess what happens......this shit.

@those who say it's a miox of both: Fuck no it isn't. Seeing as theres no sceintific merit to god that rids that little argument of any validity.
 
what would the world be with out religion. I think it keeps us intact having a sense of hope knowing that there is some sort of afterlife for some relgions who believe in such things. knowin that your life is not just something that was caused by a BANG and will end when u die nothing more to me thats boring to religion gives me a sense of calmness knowing my life means something:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom