Evolution vs. Creationism[W:2571, 3239]

[Sherman123]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Keyword here "THOUGHT " to exist on early earth?

So I have faith in God and admit I have no proof that God exist,that makes me some kind of low intelligence person according to some atheist; but atheist have a thought of what might have happened or been abound billions or so years ago that's progress?

Is not faith a belief, without proof and is not a thought of what might have been around billions of years ago without proof just a belief?eace

We use geological models as well as cosmology, chemistry, and related fields of science to draw our picture of early earth and its stages. There is quite a lot of proof regarding the conditions of early Earth ranging from geological digs, extrapolations from other models in space, chemical evaluations of deep rock, etc. Moreover knowing the exact conditions are not essential for the point raised in these experiments which was that you can in fact turn inorganic compounds into organic ones.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Actually we have the abiosis theory of the genesis of life. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. It's not very developed theory. We lack information.

Unfortunately for IDers that doesn't help them in the slightest. How life started on earth has no impact on evolutionary theory. And in any case, if you have some theory about clever entities starting life on the planet, provide the mechanism so we can test it. Otherwise, it's just magic.

"WE LACK INFORMATION" a polite way of saying we have no proof.

Are you telling me that how life started has nothing to do with evolution?
You might want to reword that evolution is to evolve from a lower species unless I'm mistaken.
You can not evolve from nothing or else you would remain nothing.
Are you saying Darwin was wrong?
I believe in evolution I believe that humans today evolved from something and continue to evolve even if it is a very very very slow processeace

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

"WE LACK INFORMATION" a polite way of saying we have no proof.

Are you telling me that how life started has nothing to do with evolution?
You might want to reword that evolution is to evolve from a lower species unless I'm mistaken.
You can not evolve from nothing or else you would remain nothing.
Are you saying Darwin was wrong?
I believe in evolution I believe that humans today evolved from something and continue to evolve even if it is a very very very slow processeace

How life started actually is divorced from evolution. Evolution by definition deals with mutations and changes to existing organisms while Abiogenesis (which has more to do with chemistry in its initial stages) deals with how inorganic compounds can form organic ones and eventually organic life.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

The two are incompatible in essence. Evolution is scientifically derived theory, that has many indicators and suggestions based on data realistically tested today. The other one is religion derived non factual BS.

The two differ in how one approaches a belief. In science you need to analyze the data and critically evaluate whether the theory could still hold. If it does hold then you give in ratios of belief. See it takes a while to win us to believe anything.

In religion it is reversed. You first believe the "almighty's design" and then find according things to support it (if you must, though it is not necessary, a mere belief could do).

Regardless of such incompatibility in approaching belief, some propose the two to be taught at schools where otherwise everything else is scientifically derived conclusion (like evolution) :doh .

This course on creationism would be so alien there that it should take a reverse perspective to have our point across and them perhaps understand. The reversed perspective would be to teach atheism in religious sites.

I am a faith believer sir I accept your challenge as it is .

You state that the two differ on how it approaches belief.

Organized religion this is true cause I say it is if you don't believe as I do you will go to Hell
Atheist, this is true cause I say it is if you don't believe as I do you are of low intelligence.
Sounds an awful lot alike.

As far as the uhh inconsistencies well lets take a look shall we.

Organized religion so some priest molested a kid , god forgives, so some telavangilist rips off some people for their money just sinned now get a blessing and no big deal , so some preacher that's down on adultry got caught with a hooker people will forgive because God told him to ask?

Atheist, using science first it was physics 101 you can not have an explosion without energy and matter but atheist changed that up and presto' the Big Bang started the universe.
Atheist using science again the evolution of mankind is a theory , but most believe it is fact , but you can not create or have living organisms to just appear out of rocks . but now according to some atheist you can Now all of this started from nothing and the followers just become yes men , just like organized religion's followers become yes men

Bottom line put enough spin on it that makes it believable the churches remain full and the atheist writes yet another book or makes another lecture making money all the while.
Faith believers follow neither organized religion or atheist for neither has proof and neither will admit they don't .

If one already knows the answer one need not search for the solution
Orgaized religion says they know the real answer
Atheist say they know the real answer.
Faith believers search for the answer.leace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

We use geological models as well as cosmology, chemistry, and related fields of science to draw our picture of early earth and its stages. There is quite a lot of proof regarding the conditions of early Earth ranging from geological digs, extrapolations from other models in space, chemical evaluations of deep rock, etc. Moreover knowing the exact conditions are not essential for the point raised in these experiments which was that you can in fact turn inorganic compounds into organic ones.

So you are using models from 2013 to draw a picture odf nothing for before there was something what was there?
Now you could say according to a theory or a thought there was energy before the universe got started.
That's like me saying I was a billionaire I just have no proof of ever having money or where it went, of course you'll take my word for that right?
Hell no I wouldn't believe that crap but aren't you asking me to believe the same based on a model built in 2013 , that's gonna show me what happened before the beginning of time or space or planets or anything even the universe itself based on a model built in 2013???eace

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

"WE LACK INFORMATION" a polite way of saying we have no proof.

Are you telling me that how life started has nothing to do with evolution?
You might want to reword that evolution is to evolve from a lower species unless I'm mistaken.
You can not evolve from nothing or else you would remain nothing.
Are you saying Darwin was wrong?
I believe in evolution I believe that humans today evolved from something and continue to evolve even if it is a very very very slow processeace

Pssst: science doesn't "prove" things. It explains things, and provides empirical evidence supporting the explanation. The best explanation wins because it makes the most useful predictions about things we care about.

Scientific theories are never "proven" (you can't prove empirical claims); they are valid or invalid based on whether there are any observed disconfirming facts and based on whether they do a better job explaining more facts than competing theories.

Why are you comparing explanation based on empirical knowledge, which is provisional and never perfect, to "faith" and "belief" which has no basis in the empirical at all, and can't be used to make predictions? Tthey have nothing in common

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I love science and am all for scientific progress method and goal.

However in your post you ask for something quote "then provide a hypothesis about how that was done then we can test it empirically . Physical intervention of technology leaves traces"

Very well provide an hypothesis of creating living organisms from nothing?
Using only scientific methods from scratch , nothing a vacuum of a void.
For surely such a feat would leave traces. and could be repeated even today, you forget sir to evolve one must have something to evolve from a blueprint of living tissue not rocks.or inanimate objects. That is unless you believe in intelligent rocks?eace

Gee, that was easy.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm beginning to suspect you're not sincere when you claim you love science. You certainly don't understand what it's doing.

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Keyword here "THOUGHT " to exist on early earth?

So I have faith in God and admit I have no proof that God exist,that makes me some kind of low intelligence person according to some atheist; but atheist have a thought of what might have happened or been abound billions or so years ago that's progress?

Is not faith a belief, without proof and is not a thought of what might have been around billions of years ago without proof just a belief?eace

No, a hypothesis is testable. It isn't just a belief.

Why are you insisting on mischaracterizing science in order to support your mischaracterizations of religion?

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

How life started actually is divorced from evolution. Evolution by definition deals with mutations and changes to existing organisms while Abiogenesis (which has more to do with chemistry in its initial stages) deals with how inorganic compounds can form organic ones and eventually organic life.

So you atheist changed your mind again did ya?

Cause Darwin was at one time an Atheist go to guy, and now ya got divorced? lol

Seems like Atheist are always kicking some to the curb.
Physics 101 to have an explosion you must have energy matter and a detonator basic science
Atheist yeah but if there was a big bang theory that energy and matter needed for an explosion becomes irrelevant.

Science welcomed Darwins theory some who had faith began to research evolution and found it to be true
However once again atheist says evolution is no longer needed .
As far as nonliving organisms creating living organisms ?
To use a phrase Atheist are fond of using "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF"?eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Gee, that was easy.

Big Bang Theory

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm beginning to suspect you're not sincere when you claim you love science. You certainly don't understand what it's doing.

Sorry I must have missed the announcement on how there is absolute iron clad proof on how the universe got started .
Ah well so much bad news today so I listen to music,
So tell me who will be receiving the Scientific award for greatness and the Nobel as well as the Pulitzer.

Strange I turned to a news channel they said nothing about your discovery.

By the way something else I love more than science TRUTH WITH IRON CLAD PROOF TO BACK IT UP.

Oh, it may be easy for you to just post something and stand back and say there it is to these young atheist or anti faith posters which become yes man when anything negative about Intelligent Design is mentioned, but I don't rattle that easy.

Atheist ask me to prove God exist no faith or belief that God exist iron clad proof . I stated the truth I have no proof only faith.
I ask for the same from atheist "no more, no less "if the universe came to be by other means prove it no theories , no hypotheses , no speculation iron cladeace

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Sorry I must have missed the announcement on how there is absolute iron clad proof on how the universe got started .
Ah well so much bad news today so I listen to music,
So tell me who will be receiving the Scientific award for greatness and the Nobel as well as the Pulitzer.

Strange I turned to a news channel they said nothing about your discovery.

By the way something else I love more than science TRUTH WITH IRON CLAD PROOF TO BACK IT UP.

Oh, it may be easy for you to just post something and stand back and say there it is to these young atheist or anti faith posters which become yes man when anything negative about Intelligent Design is mentioned, but I don't rattle that easy.

Atheist ask me to prove God exist no faith or belief that God exist iron clad proof . I stated the truth I have no proof only faith.
I ask for the same from atheist "no more, no less "if the universe came to be by other means prove it no theories , no hypotheses , no speculation iron cladeace

What the Sam Hill are you talking about? Science is an empirical endeavor. Not only doesn't it not "prove" the "truth" (whatever that is), it isn't trying to do that.

What science does is explain observable facts we don't understand. It tests those explanation (theories) with empirical evidence and the best theories that explain the most facts and make the most useful predictions are valid. That's methodological naturalism. It works really well.

It's like you don't even know the first thing about what science (or religion) does.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

No, a hypothesis is testable. It isn't just a belief.

Why are you insisting on mischaracterizing science in order to support your mischaracterizations of religion?

So a Hypothesis is testable , when it becomes fact let me know until then it remains a hypothesis.

FYI miracles can be tested and are by the Catholic church just to name one.
As for Faith believers like me,research and check and recheck the research look for mistakes or inconsistencies which are not that difficult to find really.
eace

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So a Hypothesis is testable , when it becomes fact let me know until then it remains a hypothesis.

FYI miracles can be tested and are by the Catholic church just to name one.
As for Faith believers like me,research and check and recheck the research look for mistakes or inconsistencies which are not that difficult to find really.
eace

Pssst: Explanations are never facts. Observable facts are what explanations (hypotheses) explain. Then we test the hypotheses with experiments to see if they withstand the scrutiny of methodological naturalism. And if they do we can sometimes generate a theory with broader explanatory power.

It's like you couldn't be any more confused about the basics.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

What the Sam Hill are you talking about? Science is an empirical endeavor. Not only doesn't it not "prove" the "truth" (whatever that is), it isn't trying to do that.

What science does is explain observable facts we don't understand. It tests those explanation (theories) with empirical evidence and the best theories that explain the most facts and make the most useful predictions are valid. That's methodological naturalism. It works really well.

It's like you don't even know the first thing about what science (or religion) does.

"What science does not explain observable facts we do not understand" these are your words are they not?

Perhaps you don't want to venture into the unknown, perhaps you feel safe with what science can explain .
Or has atheist that wanna be scientist forgotten about the unknown factor.

Or perhaps the great intellectuals of the atheist community already knows everything there is to know about the universe ;bold talk for a species that has never made it to another planet and still working on alternative fuel . Hell can't even budget for a space program , had budget cuts at Nasa.
This is not science vs religion it is "ATHEIST VS RELIGION".
Atheist use science as a crutch without it their so called there is no God issue would wither and eventually die.eace

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

"What science does not explain observable facts we do not understand" these are your words are they not?

Perhaps you don't want to venture into the unknown, perhaps you feel safe with what science can explain .
Or has atheist that wanna be scientist forgotten about the unknown factor.

Or perhaps the great intellectuals of the atheist community already knows everything there is to know about the universe ;bold talk for a species that has never made it to another planet and still working on alternative fuel . Hell can't even budget for a space program , had budget cuts at Nasa.
This is not science vs religion it is "ATHEIST VS RELIGION".
Atheist use science as a crutch without it their so called there is no God issue would wither and eventually die.eace

At this point you're making even less sense then when you started your screed against science.

Get use to it: science works. It makes useful predictions about stuff we care about. The method is methodological naturalism, which doesn't use supernatural explanations, which get us nowhere and don't lead to useful predictions.

If you really hate science so much, next time you get sick, go to a witch doctor or faith healer. Me, I'll go to a physician.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Pssst: Explanations are never facts. Observable facts are what explanations (hypotheses) explain. Then we test the hypotheses with experiments to see if they withstand the scrutiny of methodological naturalism. And if they do we can sometimes generate a theory with broader explanatory power.

It's like you couldn't be any more confused about the basics.

Sorry but a theory is not a fact.
You need facts for proofs not theories or hypotheses .

What would the difference be you ask for proof that God exist I present an unexplained thing that happened Some would call that a miracle.
However we both know that miricale is an assumption just like your theory or hypotheses or test you assume that it's all truth and will become facteace

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Sorry but a theory is not a fact.
You need facts for proofs not theories or hypotheses .

What would the difference be you ask for proof that God exist I present an unexplained thing that happened Some would call that a miracle.
However we both know that miricale is an assumption just like your theory or hypotheses or test you assume that it's all truth and will become facteace

Pssst: nobody claimed scientific theories are facts. Scientific theories explain facts. And they do a good job of it.

Focus, focus.

It's like your mind is controlled by a creationist website.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So you are using models from 2013 to draw a picture odf nothing for before there was something what was there?
Now you could say according to a theory or a thought there was energy before the universe got started.
That's like me saying I was a billionaire I just have no proof of ever having money or where it went, of course you'll take my word for that right?
Hell no I wouldn't believe that crap but aren't you asking me to believe the same based on a model built in 2013 , that's gonna show me what happened before the beginning of time or space or planets or anything even the universe itself based on a model built in 2013???eace

There are a few things here so I'll try and approach them numerically if you don't mind.

1. Yes, we do this all the time. Much of what we know in Cosmology, Physics, and Geology (and I'm sure other areas) revolves around using empirical measurements indirectly to study things we cannot directly observe. For example we use cosmic microwave radiation and what we know about radiological decay to study the history of the Universe. We use light shifting to study planets we cannot see, we use carbon dating to determine age for time periods in which we were not present, and we use mathematical models to create hypothesis for things we cannot currently observe. For the conditions on Earth we actually can do a great deal better than the aforementioned examples (not that they are 'bad) because we have so much material in front of us to work with: rocks, an atmosphere, observable sister planets, meteorites, fossils, etc.

2. I really would like to reiterate that validity of the Teller experiments on amino acid chains are valid either way. We can, and have, turned inorganic compounds into organic precursors and we know natural conditions exist in the Universe similar to this laboratory.

3. I was never talking about the beginning of time or planets. My only input into this thread has been about abiogenesis unless I'm mistaken. Your answer seems defensive and reflexive.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So you atheist changed your mind again did ya?

Cause Darwin was at one time an Atheist go to guy, and now ya got divorced? lol

Seems like Atheist are always kicking some to the curb.
Physics 101 to have an explosion you must have energy matter and a detonator basic science
Atheist yeah but if there was a big bang theory that energy and matter needed for an explosion becomes irrelevant.

Science welcomed Darwins theory some who had faith began to research evolution and found it to be true
However once again atheist says evolution is no longer needed .
As far as nonliving organisms creating living organisms ?
To use a phrase Atheist are fond of using "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF"?eace

I'm very confused by your response. You asked if evolution and the origin of life are separate scientific fields. The answer (without controversy) is yes. Abiogenesis concerns the origin of organic life from inorganic compounds. Evolution studies the mutations and changes within organic life. It is why Charles Darwin's book was called Origin of the Species, not Origin of Life.

I've also not disclosed my preferences in this thread, you have no idea what I believe.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

At this point you're making even less sense then when you started your screed against science.

Get use to it: science works. It makes useful predictions about stuff we care about. The method is methodological naturalism, which doesn't use supernatural explanations, which get us nowhere and don't lead to useful predictions.

If you really hate science so much, next time you get sick, go to a witch doctor or faith healer. Me, I'll go to a physician.

Why is it logical to ask proof that god exist from atheist.
However when anybody ask atheist for proof it's the old you don't understand or you're not making any sense routine.
That sounds an awfull lot like organized religion if you're not a member of my church , if you don't believe as i believe don't think like me you're not making any sense and you will wind up in Hell.

No person has the right to sit in judgement of another's belief unless they have facts to prove their belief is unwarranted .

So far I ain't seen no facts , just theories and that's what it says in Genesis, no facts, no proof.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

There are a few things here so I'll try and approach them numerically if you don't mind.

1. Yes, we do this all the time. Much of what we know in Cosmology, Physics, and Geology (and I'm sure other areas) revolves around using empirical measurements indirectly to study things we cannot directly observe. For example we use cosmic microwave radiation and what we know about radiological decay to study the history of the Universe. We use light shifting to study planets we cannot see, we use carbon dating to determine age for time periods in which we were not present, and we use mathematical models to create hypothesis for things we cannot currently observe. For the conditions on Earth we actually can do a great deal better than the aforementioned examples (not that they are 'bad) because we have so much material in front of us to work with: rocks, an atmosphere, observable sister planets, meteorites, fossils, etc.

2. I really would like to reiterate that validity of the Teller experiments on amino acid chains are valid either way. We can, and have, turned inorganic compounds into organic precursors and we know natural conditions exist in the Universe similar to this laboratory.

3. I was never talking about the beginning of time or planets. My only input into this thread has been about abiogenesis unless I'm mistaken. Your answer seems defensive and reflexive.

No thanks just the facts ,that's what we want isn't it , the truth , that can only be had through FACTS.eace

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Why is it logical to ask proof that god exist from atheist.
However when anybody ask atheist for proof it's the old you don't understand or you're not making any sense routine.
That sounds an awfull lot like organized religion if you're not a member of my church , if you don't believe as i believe don't think like me you're not making any sense and you will wind up in Hell.

No person has the right to sit in judgement of another's belief unless they have facts to prove their belief is unwarranted .

So far I ain't seen no facts , just theories and that's what it says in Genesis, no facts, no proof.eace

Psst: I'm not an atheist. I'm a Lutheran.

You're so utterly confused about science and religion, you can only mouth talking points from bad creationist websties.

Please leave my religion out of you heresy and found some ridiculous Luddite sect that doesn't use modern medicine.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I'm very confused by your response. You asked if evolution and the origin of life are separate scientific fields. The answer (without controversy) is yes. Abiogenesis concerns the origin of organic life from inorganic compounds. Evolution studies the mutations and changes within organic life. It is why Charles Darwin's book was called Origin of the Species, not Origin of Life.

I've also not disclosed my preferences in this thread, you have no idea what I believe.

I'm confused by your response on one post you say evolution is no longer relevant then you split it up, again saying evolution and the origin of life are two separate scientific issues?

I remind you of natural law which proceeds scientific law inorganic compounds are not living compounds or they would in fact be organic compounds.

The evolution of mankind is based on the original blueprint wherever it came from , but it had to be living tissue , nonliving tissue can not create living tissue unless you go Frankenstien on me but as we know that is Fiction, it only exist in the mind of A writer named Mary Shelly.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Pssst: nobody claimed scientific theories are facts. Scientific theories explain facts. And they do a good job of it.

Focus, focus.

It's like your mind is controlled by a creationist website.

Let me get this straight , you are explaining facts with theories???

why?

Example ;
Fact you was born ,
Fact you will die
I need no theories to explain facts.eace

 

[Ikari]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So you atheist changed your mind again did ya?

Cause Darwin was at one time an Atheist go to guy, and now ya got divorced? lol

Seems like Atheist are always kicking some to the curb.
Physics 101 to have an explosion you must have energy matter and a detonator basic science
Atheist yeah but if there was a big bang theory that energy and matter needed for an explosion becomes irrelevant.

Science welcomed Darwins theory some who had faith began to research evolution and found it to be true
However once again atheist says evolution is no longer needed .
As far as nonliving organisms creating living organisms ?
To use a phrase Atheist are fond of using "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF"?eace

We didn't throw out Darwin...what are you talking about? As for "where did the stuff for the big bang come from", it is unknown but it could very well be vacuum genesis. We already see vacuum fluctuations in our current universe, the spontaneous generation of matter and anti-matter pairs. Our entire universe could be nothing more than a vacuum fluctuation. It would fit all the measurements if so.