The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[steen]

I can agree with that sentiment to some extent. Science tells the HOW and the WHAT, while the Bible tells the Why. And both are woefully inadequate in each other’s territory.

I disagree. They compliment each other beautifully.

Ahem, that's kind of what I said.

The authors of the Bible were not men of science and had no opportunity or apparent inclination for scientific study. Their symbolism, metaphors, allegories, and poetry were all focused on one central concept: All that has ever been, is, or will ever be is out of and from God's creation.

That is the "why" part, yes.

You are correct that evolution explains some of the 'how'. And the Bible explains some of the 'why'. And there is no scientist that can show or prove that the two are mutually exclusive in any way.

I believe that was part of my poiint, yes. My point was that scienec doesn't explain "why" and the Bible doesn't explain "how."

The case for Intelligent Design is evident to those who believe it simply because it cannot be replicated by science.

Yes, it is a matter of belief. people can believe anything they want.

And evolution is evident to those who believe it

Not really. It is not a matter of belief but rather about evidence.

simply because there is no better conclusion to be had based on the evidence we have. And there is nobody who can rationally argue that if one exists, the other cannot.

Ah, but since ID claims that some things could not have evolved, it is a mater of faith trying to intrude on the "how," directly making claims that goes against sciencfe. At that point, they are not complimentary but rather are mutually exclusive. 2+2 can't both be 4 and 28. Only one is true when dealing in facts.

So if the ID crowd would stop making scientific claims and thus outright lie, then there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[MrFungus420]

I can agree with that sentiment to some extent. Science tells the HOW and the WHAT, while the Bible tells the Why. And both are woefully inadequate in each other’s territory.
QUOTE]

I disagree. They compliment each other beautifully. The authors of the Bible were not men of science and had no opportunity or apparent inclination for scientific study. Their symbolism, metaphors, allegories, and poetry were all focused on one central concept: All that has ever been, is, or will ever be is out of and from God's creation.

A central concept that has nothing to back it other than the Bible. It has no evidence to support it.

You are correct that evolution explains some of the 'how'. And the Bible explains some of the 'why'. And there is no scientist that can show or prove that the two are mutually exclusive in any way.

Because scientists are working with facts. None of which support the claims of the Bible. Why would you think that scientists would have to show that they are mutually exclusive when only one has any evidence to support it?

The case for Intelligent Design is evident to those who believe it simply because it cannot be replicated by science.

There is the point. It is apparent to those who already believe in it. It cannot be replicated, it cannot be verified. There is no evidence to support it. There is nothing to suggest that it is more than a myth.

And evolution is evident to those who believe it simply because there is no better conclusion to be had based on the evidence we have.

The evidence points to evolution. The theory of evolution comes from examining the evidence. The evidence all supports evolution. None of the evidence supports creationism.

And there is nobody who can rationally argue that if one exists, the other cannot.

More to the point, there is nobody who can give a rational argument for creationism. The evidence doesn't support creationism in any way, shape or form.

So, it comes down to evolution, which is supported by the evidence, and creationism, which has nothing to suggest that it is anything more than a myth.

 

[AlbqOwl]

A central concept that has nothing to back it other than the Bible. It has no evidence to support it.

No, it has much to back it including revelation, observation, reason, touch, scent, and the fact that we cannot use evolution as even the probable reason for why some things are the way they are. So that alway sleaves open the possibility that there is 'something more'.

Because scientists are working with facts. None of which support the claims of the Bible. Why would you think that scientists would have to show that they are mutually exclusive when only one has any evidence to support it?

As I pointed out, there are the five senses and reason to support the 'something more' concept that is both obvious and provable. We simple cannot prove the 'how' on some things.


There is the point. It is apparent to those who already believe in it. It cannot be replicated, it cannot be verified. There is no evidence to support it. There is nothing to suggest that it is more than a myth.''

Except that many who have never read, seen, or heard of a Bible have come to the same conclusion that there must be some kind of intelligent design for the universe.

The evidence points to evolution. The theory of evolution comes from examining the evidence. The evidence all supports evolution. None of the evidence supports creationism.

Very few people have any problem with evolution. But where did evolution come from? How did it come about? Can you say with any certainty that there is no intelligent design behind it?

More to the point, there is nobody who can give a rational argument for creationism. The evidence doesn't support creationism in any way, shape or form.

The most rational argument is that with all the profound and magnificent bodies of scientific knowledge spanning the millenia, no known science can create something out of nothing.

So, it comes down to evolution, which is supported by the evidence, and creationism, which has nothing to suggest that it is anything more than a myth.

Do not confuse the 'creationism' of the Bible with intelligent design. While these share certain concepts, they are different animals. I choose to believe that we don't yet know all there is to know and that we don't have all the science that will be made available to us, and also history is on our side that much of what we believe to be scientific fact today will be proved wrong on down the line. A true open mind embraces Darwin's theories and all that has proceded from them, and also holds open the possibility that there is some intelligent mind that is overseeing the entire process.

 

[steen]

A central concept that has nothing to back it other than the Bible. It has no evidence to support it.

No, it has much to back it including revelation, observation, reason, touch, scent,

All ,subjective, unverified claims. You seem not to understand what evidence is?

and the fact that we cannot use evolution as even the probable reason for why some things are the way they are.

nobody ever claimed that Science can determine "why" things happen, as in what the meaning of the occurrence is. So making such claims are bogus, indicative of a certain level of dishonesty in your argument.

So that alway sleaves open the possibility that there is 'something more'.

Sure. metaphysically and spiritually. However, physically there is no evidence.

Because scientists are working with facts. None of which support the claims of the Bible. Why would you think that scientists would have to show that they are mutually exclusive when only one has any evidence to support it?

As I pointed out, there are the five senses and reason to support the 'something more' concept that is both obvious and provable.

"provable"? Why don't you prove it, then? No?

We simple cannot prove the 'how' on some things.

But many we actually can. That creationists and IDers then decide to lie about the things that we HAVE shown the "how" about, that is the problem of the dishonest fundies who push these falsehoods.

There is the point. It is apparent to those who already believe in it. It cannot be replicated, it cannot be verified. There is no evidence to support it. There is nothing to suggest that it is more than a myth.''

Except that many who have never read, seen, or heard of a Bible have come to the same conclusion that there must be some kind of intelligent design for the universe.

Why? Oh, I get it. The typical argument for ID. "It MUST be that way, because I personally can't believe that it isn't." That is rather weak as arguments go.

The evidence points to evolution. The theory of evolution comes from examining the evidence. The evidence all supports evolution. None of the evidence supports creationism.

Very few people have any problem with evolution.

creationists do. they lie about evolution all the time in the hope of 'disproving" it. And ID has a problem with evolution as well, claiming that something just COULDN"T have evolved, just because they oh so wants it to have been designed.

So are you here trying to say that creationists and IDers are such a miniscule radical fringe as to be immaterial and unimportant? Well, I would tend to agree with that.

But where did evolution come from? How did it come about? Can you say with any certainty that there is no intelligent design behind it?

Nope. You can't say one way or the other. Why does warm water feel warm? can you say where that feeling originated? Why do we see light as light? can you say with certainty how that trait came to be? Etc, wild speculations. Immaterial. Evolution occurs and has been documented. creationists and ID who say otherwise are lying as the evidence has shown. All your sophistry and diversion can not erase that.

More to the point, there is nobody who can give a rational argument for creationism. The evidence doesn't support creationism in any way, shape or form.

Like it also doesn't support ID.

The most rational argument is that with all the profound and magnificent bodies of scientific knowledge spanning the millenia, no known science can create something out of nothing.

Well, in quantum physics you can. But that is irrelevant to the issue of the Scientific Theory of Evolution, as nothing in the science about evolution has ever claimed this. Why the strawman?

So, it comes down to evolution, which is supported by the evidence, and creationism, which has nothing to suggest that it is anything more than a myth.

Do not confuse the 'creationism' of the Bible with intelligent design. While these share certain concepts, they are different animals. I choose to believe that we don't yet know all there is to know and that we don't have all the science that will be made available to us, and also history is on our side that much of what we believe to be scientific fact today will be proved wrong on down the line.

You are free to believe that, in the face of evidence to the contrary, the evidence that the Scientific Method is sound.

A true open mind embraces Darwin's theories and all that has proceded from them,

Darwin proposed hypotheses, he didn't generate any Scientific theory.

and also holds open the possibility that there is some intelligent mind that is overseeing the entire process.[/B]

That may or may not be the case but certainly have no scientific foundation.

So you agree that those who claim ID on a scientific background are lying, right? You DO think that those who claim science where there isn't any science, that these people are dishonest, don't you?

 

[MrFungus420]

No, it has much to back it including revelation, observation, reason, touch, scent, and the fact that we cannot use evolution as even the probable reason for why some things are the way they are. So that alway sleaves open the possibility that there is 'something more'.

Ok, Let's break this down. Revelation. By this I take it that you mean some sort of religious revelation. That isn't evidence in any way.

Observation. Tell me anything that has been observed that leads to conclusion that creationism is correct. All the verifiable evidence supports evolution.

Reason. Reason leads us to view the evidence, and that brings us back to evolution.

Touch and scent. What is there that one can touch or smell that points to creationism?

Looking for a "why" is, essentially, anthropocentrism. People want to believe that we are so important that there must be a reason for us to be here. That is simple arrogance. There is nothing that supports this point of view.

As I pointed out, there are the five senses and reason to support the 'something more' concept that is both obvious and provable. We simple cannot prove the 'how' on some things.

Whenever I see anything put forth as "reason" to try to support creationism, it is almost always a glorified argument from incredulity.

And, you only mentioned three of the senses, but didn't give any evidence that they give us that would support creationism.

If the "something more" is both obvious and proveable, prove it. It should be simple based on your claim.

Except that many who have never read, seen, or heard of a Bible have come to the same conclusion that there must be some kind of intelligent design for the universe.

Yes, and there have been many that have come to the conclusion that thunder and lightning must have been caused by a god as well.

At least they have the excuse of ignorance. Creationism depends on ignoring and misrepresenting what we have learned about evolution.

Very few people have any problem with evolution. But where did evolution come from? How did it come about? Can you say with any certainty that there is no intelligent design behind it?

It is simply a natural process.

I can say with certainty that there is no evidence of creationism. There is nothing to support it.

Do not confuse the 'creationism' of the Bible with intelligent design. While these share certain concepts, they are different animals.

ID is just a watered down version of creationism. It is nothing more than an attempt to incrementally get creationism accepted. It is trying to hold onto a god despite a complete lack of evidence to support it.

I choose to believe that we don't yet know all there is to know and that we don't have all the science that will be made available to us,

You'll get no argument from me on this. Science is constantly expanding our knowledge.

and also history is on our side that much of what we believe to be scientific fact today will be proved wrong on down the line.

Except that as more and more research is done, it continually strengthens the theory of evolution.

A true open mind embraces Darwin's theories and all that has proceded from them, and also holds open the possibility that there is some intelligent mind that is overseeing the entire process.

An open mind should hold open the probability that there is no god behind it. There is nothing to support that idea except for ancient mythology.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Ok, Let's break this down. Revelation. By this I take it that you mean some sort of religious revelation. That isn't evidence in any way.

Religious or not, ideas come from somewhere. All through recorded history ideas, concepts, curiosity, or whatever you wish to call it has been what has inspired all scientific discovery that there is. To discount human creativity is to discount all that we know of what human minds have conceived. Did such unique human thought evolve naturally? You would say yes. But you have nothing with which to prove that any more than I can prove ID to you.

Observation. Tell me anything that has been observed that leads to conclusion that creationism is correct. All the verifiable evidence supports evolution.

And nothing disputes creationism. You seem to have the idea that the two cannot coexist peacefully within the same framework of knowledge.

Reason. Reason leads us to view the evidence, and that brings us back to evolution.

So did reason evolve? Or is reason part of the ID that so many of us seem to be able to see and to which others are blind?

Touch and scent. What is there that one can touch or smell that points to creationism?

It is the whole scope of human consciousness and reason and revelation as previously described that brings some to awareness of possibilities that cannot be explained by the science that we have now. Perhaps some humans have evolved more than others to have the ability to recognize this. :smile:

Looking for a "why" is, essentially, anthropocentrism. People want to believe that we are so important that there must be a reason for us to be here. That is simple arrogance. There is nothing that supports this point of view.

And this, Sir, is so much baloney. Without the eternal 'why' hanging before us, 99% of the scientific body of knowledge that we now have would yet be undiscovered. You brought up the 'reason for us to be here.' I did not. But if we in fact do have a purpose for our existence, wouldn't it be profitable to look for that purpose?


Whenever I see anything put forth as "reason" to try to support creationism, it is almost always a glorified argument from incredulity.

Expand on this. What do you mean?

And, you only mentioned three of the senses, but didn't give any evidence that they give us that would support creationism.

I refer to my earlier response. I assumed most here would know what all the senses were and thus it was unnecessary to name them.

If the "something more" is both obvious and proveable, prove it. It should be simple based on your claim.

What claim did I make that I stated was provable? What claim have you made that is provable? I have already conceded to the concept of evolution and have absolutely no quarrel with it. Why are you so adament that there is no intelligent design behind it? Have you made up your mind that we do have all the knowlege there is on this subject after all? Later in your post you admitted we are constantly expanding our knowledge. Are you so certain that our knowledge on this subject cannot be expanded?



Yes, and there have been many that have come to the conclusion that thunder and lightning must have been caused by a god as well.

At least they have the excuse of ignorance. Creationism depends on ignoring and misrepresenting what we have learned about evolution.

You keep insisting that Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing while ignoring my opinion that they are different things. But even if we go with Creationism which is one explanation for Intelligent Design, how does that in any way misrepresent what we have learned about evolution?

It is simply a natural process.

Are you so certain of that? Do you have empirical evidence to insist on it? Or is this what you have been indoctrinated to believe? How can you say with certainty that 'natural process' is not an methodology of ID?

I can say with certainty that there is no evidence of creationism. There is nothing to support it.

Then why did you ignore my argument that there is no evidence that evolution created anything out of nothing? No scientific process known to humankind can create anything out of nothing. So where did the elements come from that have evolved into what we know now? Are these elements themselves not evidence?

ID is just a watered down version of creationism. It is nothing more than an attempt to incrementally get creationism accepted. It is trying to hold onto a god despite a complete lack of evidence to support it.

As I have not mentioned god, why is this an issue with you. Why is it so important to you that there be no God?

You'll get no argument from me on this. Science is constantly expanding our knowledge.

See? If we look hard enough we can always find a point of agreement to begin from. :smile:


Except that as more and more research is done, it continually strengthens the theory of evolution.

I have no argument with that as in no place in this entire discussion have I had any quarrel with evolution.

An open mind should hold open the probability that there is no god behind it. There is nothing to support that idea except for ancient mythology.

That is a tough one since those who have experienced God know with absolute certainty of the existence of God. And again why does it seem so important to you to assert that there is not?

 

[MrFungus420]

Ok, Let's break this down. Revelation. By this I take it that you mean some sort of religious revelation. That isn't evidence in any way.

Religious or not, ideas come from somewhere. All through recorded history ideas, concepts, curiosity, or whatever you wish to call it has been what has inspired all scientific discovery that there is. To discount human creativity is to discount all that we know of what human minds have conceived. Did such unique human thought evolve naturally? You would say yes. But you have nothing with which to prove that any more than I can prove ID to you.

Observation. Tell me anything that has been observed that leads to conclusion that creationism is correct. All the verifiable evidence supports evolution.

And nothing disputes creationism. You seem to have the idea that the two cannot coexist peacefully within the same framework of knowledge.

Reason. Reason leads us to view the evidence, and that brings us back to evolution.

So did reason evolve? Or is reason part of the ID that so many of us seem to be able to see and to which others are blind?

Touch and scent. What is there that one can touch or smell that points to creationism?

It is the whole scope of human consciousness and reason and revelation as previously described that brings some to awareness of possibilities that cannot be explained by the science that we have now. Perhaps some humans have evolved more than others to have the ability to recognize this.

First, the general point here. You gave each of these as evidence that supports the idea that God created everything. I disputed each of those points. Can you back up your assertions?

On to specifics.

At no point have I discounted peoples' creativity. However, that is moot to the points made. You claimed these points as evidence to support creationism. I pointed out that none of them have given us any evidence for creationism.

Did human thought and reason evolve naturally? You're right, I would say yes. That's because all of the evidence points to natural evolution. Again, can you give any evidence for creationism? I maintain that it is an unsupported myth.

You are correct on one point. Nothing actually disputes creationism. That's because it is virtually impossible to prove non-existence. I am asking for evidence to support creationism. Without any evidence, it stands as nothing more than a story.

Looking for a "why" is, essentially, anthropocentrism. People want to believe that we are so important that there must be a reason for us to be here. That is simple arrogance. There is nothing that supports this point of view.

And this, Sir, is so much baloney. Without the eternal 'why' hanging before us, 99% of the scientific body of knowledge that we now have would yet be undiscovered. You brought up the 'reason for us to be here.' I did not. But if we in fact do have a purpose for our existence, wouldn't it be profitable to look for that purpose?

You made the claim that "we cannot use evolution as even the probable reason for why some things are the way they are". Science in general, and evolution, specifically, are about how, not why. Asking "why" is asking for a reason. I extrapolated that statement out to the next point that is usually brought up.

Whenever I see anything put forth as "reason" to try to support creationism, it is almost always a glorified argument from incredulity.

Expand on this. What do you mean?

Virtually every time that I've seen someone try to apply reason to give evidence for creationism, it essentially ends up being a statement that they can't see how evolution works in a situation, therefore, it must be God. It is called an argument from incredulity. Someone is incredulous that something may have happened in the way described, so it is attributed to God.

The most common version that I see is the argument that it is very improbable that life would evolve the way it has, so it must have been directed and controlled by an outside source, i.e. God.

And, you only mentioned three of the senses, but didn't give any evidence that they give us that would support creationism.

I refer to my earlier response. I assumed most here would know what all the senses were and thus it was unnecessary to name them.

Which is avoiding the point. You claimed that "the five senses and reason to support the 'something more' concept that is both obvious and provable".

What do they give us to support that?

If the "something more" is both obvious and proveable, prove it. It should be simple based on your claim.

What claim did I make that I stated was provable?

... there are the five senses and reason to support the 'something more' concept that is both obvious and provable.

So, where is the proof that is so obvious?

What claim have you made that is provable? I have already conceded to the concept of evolution and have absolutely no quarrel with it.

Apparently you do. Evolution is a natural explanation. Creationism requires a supernatural force, a god.

I have pointed out that the evidence supports evolution, not creationism. I have asked you for evidence to support creationism. You have ignored that.

Why are you so adament that there is no intelligent design behind it?

I've said that it is an unsupported claim. Why would you expect me to believe something without any evidence to back it up?

Have you made up your mind that we do have all the knowlege there is on this subject after all? Later in your post you admitted we are constantly expanding our knowledge. Are you so certain that our knowledge on this subject cannot be expanded?

Obviously not. As I said, our knowledge is constantly expanding. And, as I said, the more we learn, the more the evidence supports evolution. There is no evidence to support ID.

Then why did you ignore my argument that there is no evidence that evolution created anything out of nothing? No scientific process known to humankind can create anything out of nothing. So where did the elements come from that have evolved into what we know now? Are these elements themselves not evidence?

Well, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is about the changes that occur in genetics over time. It has nothing to do with the creation of elements, the creation of the universe, or even the creation of life.

As I have not mentioned god, why is this an issue with you.

It is inherent in ID and creationism. They both require an outside, supernatural entity, in other words, a god.

That is a tough one since those who have experienced God know with absolute certainty of the existence of God. And again why does it seem so important to you to assert that there is not?

I haven't said that there is no god, I've said that there is no evidence for a god. I've said that there is no evidence to support ID. Without evidence, I don't believe in either. All that I've seen is unsupported myth.

 

[Slantedfacts]

I can agree with that sentiment to some extent. Science tells the HOW and the WHAT, while the Bible tells the Why. And both are woefully inadequate in each other’s territory.
no, it wasn’t. It wasn’t even expected to be the one connecting humans and the closest ape ancestor, the chimp.
I don’t questing the intelligence, I question the knowledge.
Thanks, I didn’t know that.
Let me know when you can stop spewing ignorant falsehoods – you sound like a mindless fundie creationist with this senseless display of ignorance of science.

What ignorant falsehoods?

Be specific?

EXACTLY what falsehoods did I state? . . . make reference to the BIBLE?

give me a break!

I can see how these great scientific minds searching for facts could be so knot headed as to totally dismiss a theological theory that has not been totally disproved like in Columbus's day the EDUCATED said the world was flat and the universe evolved around Earth!

Sorry - science does NOT have the greatest track record!

Look at how scientists said (the addictive) Valium was such a great medication instead of (the non- addictive) Valerian root.

For your sake - I pray the Bible is at least partially wrong!

 

[steen]

What ignorant falsehoods?

Be specific?

EXACTLY what falsehoods did I state? . . . make reference to the BIBLE?

Well, you made the false claim that Science saw "Lycy" as the ancestor to humans/monkeys. That certainly is an ignorant falsehood.

I can see how these great scientific minds searching for facts could be so knot headed as to totally dismiss a theological theory that has not been totally disproved like in Columbus's day the EDUCATED said the world was flat and the universe evolved around Earth!

What utter nonsense.

For your sake - I pray the Bible is at least partially wrong!

Oh, fascinating. Threats camoflagued as concern. How lame, pathetic and childish.

 

[Slantedfacts]

Well, you made the false claim that Science saw "Lycy" as the ancestor to humans/monkeys. That certainly is an ignorant falsehood.
What utter nonsense.
Oh, fascinating. Threats camoflagued as concern. How lame, pathetic and childish.

WTF!

Do this Google search: missing link found

THEN EXPLAIN YOUR STATEMENT REGARDING MY COMMENT WHICH YOU SAID: Well, you made the false claim that Science saw "Lycy" as the ancestor to humans/monkeys. That certainly is an ignorant falsehood.
What utter nonsense.

REALLY?

Just to save you the effort - here are the first few headlines of THAT SEARCH:

1. NUMBER 1 Pravda.RU Anthropology: Seven-million-year-old missing link found
2. NUMBER 2 Missing Link Found!
   
3. NUMBER 3 BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Original' great ape discovered
4. NUMBER 4 The Missing Link Found In South Africa?

GEE! You think there were never any considerations that Lucy was the fairy tail MISSING LINK? - As you said you made the false claim that Science saw "Lycy" as the ancestor to humans/monkeys

yeah! okay!

 

[tecoyah]

There is no single..."Missing Link", or at the very least not much chance of one fossil/species, meeting the criteria needed to show the branch off point of what eventually became human. Scientists look at Lucy as a good example of an important step in human evolution in many ways, but certainly not as the perverbial missing link. Any ancestor linking Humans and monkeys would need to go much further back in time, as both species have had seperate evolution for many millions of years, thus the major differences in physical attributes, yet major similarity in genetic makeup.
That the IS a common ancestor is not in dispute....simple logic dictates this to be the case. But.....Lucy aint it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

First, the general point here. You gave each of these as evidence that supports the idea that God created everything. I disputed each of those points. Can you back up your assertions?

Show me where I said God created everything. You seem to have a fixation on that point and refuse to consider any other point of view other than God didn't do it and Evolution did. I am offering a different way to look at it, but cannot do that if you aren't willing to see it any other way than the way you have chosen which is a way too narrow in my book.

On to specifics.

At no point have I discounted peoples' creativity. However, that is moot to the points made. You claimed these points as evidence to support creationism. I pointed out that none of them have given us any evidence for creationism.

Nor does evolution give any evidence to support creativity or it would seem to logically follow that in evolution there would not be such a huge gap between that demonstrated by humankind and every single other creature. There are other creatures who use rudimentary tools, but no other creatures who can conceive, design, and create something other than what their entire species instinctively do, nor is there such a wide variance in gifts, talents, and abilities among other species as compared to what we find in humans. Evolution cannot explain this; therefore there must be some other possible explanation.

Did human thought and reason evolve naturally? You're right, I would say yes. That's because all of the evidence points to natural evolution. Again, can you give any evidence for creationism? I maintain that it is an unsupported myth.

If you refuse to discount the information in my previous paragraph, and refuse to consider logic and reason as a basis for evidence, then you are fixated in a narrow world I cannot share with you.

You are correct on one point. Nothing actually disputes creationism. That's because it is virtually impossible to prove non-existence. I am asking for evidence to support creationism. Without any evidence, it stands as nothing more than a story.

There is no evidence that there are stars, planets, galaxies that exist that we have never seen. There is no evidence that another great melody will be incorporated into a song or another great painting will evolve from the mind and skills of an artist. There is no evidence that other living organisms not of earth inhabit the universe. Because there is no evidence, shall we assume that they should never be considered, thought of, or presented as possibilities. All science begins with a notion, a concept, an observation, a possibility. To close our minds to possibilities, especially those that evolution cannot speak to, is pretty short sighted I think.

You made the claim that "we cannot use evolution as even the probable reason for why some things are the way they are". Science in general, and evolution, specifically, are about how, not why. Asking "why" is asking for a reason. I extrapolated that statement out to the next point that is usually brought up.

Virtually every time that I've seen someone try to apply reason to give evidence for creationism, it essentially ends up being a statement that they can't see how evolution works in a situation, therefore, it must be God. It is called an argument from incredulity. Someone is incredulous that something may have happened in the way described, so it is attributed to God.

The most common version that I see is the argument that it is very improbable that life would evolve the way it has, so it must have been directed and controlled by an outside source, i.e. God.

Which is avoiding the point. You claimed that "the five senses and reason to support the 'something more' concept that is both obvious and provable".

What do they give us to support that?

So, where is the proof that is so obvious?

Apparently you do. Evolution is a natural explanation. Creationism requires a supernatural force, a god.

I have pointed out that the evidence supports evolution, not creationism. I have asked you for evidence to support creationism. You have ignored that.



I've said that it is an unsupported claim. Why would you expect me to believe something without any evidence to back it up?



Obviously not. As I said, our knowledge is constantly expanding. And, as I said, the more we learn, the more the evidence supports evolution. There is no evidence to support ID.



Well, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is about the changes that occur in genetics over time. It has nothing to do with the creation of elements, the creation of the universe, or even the creation of life.



It is inherent in ID and creationism. They both require an outside, supernatural entity, in other words, a god.



I haven't said that there is no god, I've said that there is no evidence for a god. I've said that there is no evidence to support ID. Without evidence, I don't believe in either. All that I've seen is unsupported myth.

Intelligent design is as much a probability as anything else that we can deduce but cannot prove. Because you cannot prove it or I cannot prove it does not mean it does not exist. I have no problem accepting that I cannot prove it and have said that again and again even as you cast aspersions on my credibility and logic. I only have problems with those who cannot accept possibilities as worthy of consideration.

 

[steen]

Do this Google search: missing link found

THEN EXPLAIN YOUR STATEMENT REGARDING MY COMMENT WHICH YOU SAID: Well, you made the false claim that Science saw "Lycy" as the ancestor to humans/monkeys. That certainly is an ignorant falsehood.
What utter nonsense.

REALLY?

Just to save you the effort - here are the first few headlines of THAT SEARCH:

1. NUMBER 1 Pravda.RU Anthropology: Seven-million-year-old missing link found
2. NUMBER 2 Missing Link Found!
   
3. NUMBER 3 BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Original' great ape discovered
4. NUMBER 4 The Missing Link Found In South Africa?

GEE! You think there were never any considerations that Lucy was the fairy tail MISSING LINK? - As you said you made the false claim that Science saw "Lycy" as the ancestor to humans/monkeys

yeah! okay!

You don't get it, do you? None of your sources qualify as scientific sources. They are newspapers and the likes. they are not peer-reviewed or have to answer for the acuracy of their claims. You could have said that the popularmedia had portrayed Lucy as t"the missing link" and that would have been correct. It doesn't mean that this media has a clue about actual science.:roll: :doh

 

[MrFungus420]

First, the general point here. You gave each of these as evidence that supports the idea that God created everything. I disputed each of those points. Can you back up your assertions?

Show me where I said God created everything. You seem to have a fixation on that point and refuse to consider any other point of view other than God didn't do it and Evolution did. I am offering a different way to look at it, but cannot do that if you aren't willing to see it any other way than the way you have chosen which is a way too narrow in my book.

It wasn't your claim. The original point to which I replied was that the central concept of the Bible, that everything is part of God's creation, has no evidence other than the Bible, no supporting evidence. You then said that "it has much to back it including revelation, observation, reason, touch, scent,".

You tried to support the original claim, so that is the argument that I'm following. If that isn't what you meant, then maybe you should be more careful when you jump in. I'm trying to stick to the original point. You seem to want to go off onto other points.

I've asked you for evidence to back you point, and you've given nothing more than opinion and pure conjecture.

Intelligent design is as much a probability as anything else that we can deduce but cannot prove. Because you cannot prove it or I cannot prove it does not mean it does not exist. I have no problem accepting that I cannot prove it and have said that again and again even as you cast aspersions on my credibility and logic. I only have problems with those who cannot accept possibilities as worthy of consideration.

I'm not asking for it to be proved, I'm asking for some evidence to back it up. There has been no verifiable evidence in history. It is only the Bible, comprised of stories written after the fact, that support it.

You have said that: "the 'something more' concept that is both obvious and provable", I've asked you for evidence of this, and you've given nothing. You have claimed that it is proveable, where is that proof?

 

[steen]

Intelligent design is as much a probability as anything else that we can deduce but cannot prove.

Ah, like the flying Spaghetti Monster that created the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Because you cannot prove it or I cannot prove it does not mean it does not exist. I have no problem accepting that I cannot prove it and have said that again and again even as you cast aspersions on my credibility and logic. I only have problems with those who cannot accept possibilities as worthy of consideration.

So we should teach the flying spaghetti monster along with ID, right?

 

[AlbqOwl]

It wasn't your claim. The original point to which I replied was that the central concept of the Bible, that everything is part of God's creation, has no evidence other than the Bible, no supporting evidence. You then said that "it has much to back it including revelation, observation, reason, touch, scent,".

I was not using the Bible as a source, however, so could I deduce that it is pertinent to your ideology that you keep coming back to that?

I've asked you for evidence to back you point, and you've given nothing more than opinion and pure conjecture.

I'm not asking for it to be proved, I'm asking for some evidence to back it up. There has been no verifiable evidence in history. It is only the Bible, comprised of stories written after the fact, that support it.

You have said that: "the 'something more' concept that is both obvious and provable", I've asked you for evidence of this, and you've given nothing. You have claimed that it is proveable, where is that proof?

I've given you all the known and unknown elements of the universe including planets, stars, asteroids, comets, and unexplainable phenomena including the existence of life itself, none of which can be explained by any process of evolution. I think this is pretty strong evidence. Isn't it at all pertinent that the biological products of the process of evolution had to start from something?

You tried to support the original claim, so that is the argument that I'm following. If that isn't what you meant, then maybe you should be more careful when you jump in. I'm trying to stick to the original point. You seem to want to go off onto other points.

I'm sorry. I thought I was discussing the topic. I didn't realize that you had set boundaries that cannot be crossed. My apologies for jumping in and interrupting the discussion with a different perspective. I will withdraw until given permission to return.

 

[steen]

I've given you all the known and unknown elements of the universe including planets, stars, asteroids, comets, and unexplainable phenomena including the existence of life itself, none of which can be explained by any process of evolution.

because they have nothing to do with Evolution, yes. They also have nothing to do with the germ Theory of Diseases, f.ex. These are completely irrelevant points as it comes to Evolution.

I think this is pretty strong evidence.

..That you don't know what Evolution is, yes.

Isn't it at all pertinent that the biological products of the process of evolution had to start from something?

Not pertinent to the Science of Evolution which strictly deals with how life changes. It does NOT deal with how life originated, how the planets originated or how the universe originated. It ONLY deals with how populations change from generation to generation, NOTHING ELSE.

You have GOT to know this by now.

 

[MrFungus420]

There is no evidence that there are stars, planets, galaxies that exist that we have never seen. There is no evidence that another great melody will be incorporated into a song or another great painting will evolve from the mind and skills of an artist. There is no evidence that other living organisms not of earth inhabit the universe. Because there is no evidence, shall we assume that they should never be considered, thought of, or presented as possibilities. All science begins with a notion, a concept, an observation, a possibility.

This is something else that I want to address quickly.

Everything that you have mentioned here are things that do exist, planets, stars, galaxies, melodies, paintings and life. This does put them in the realm of possibility, if not probability. There is no evidence for some sort of supernatural guiding force in the universe.

To close our minds to possibilities, especially those that evolution cannot speak to, is pretty short sighted I think.

To automatically accept something that people can imagine as a valid possibility, whether or not it is related to evolution, I think borders on gullibility.

 

[MrFungus420]

I was not using the Bible as a source, however, so could I deduce that it is pertinent to your ideology that you keep coming back to that?

You may not have been, but the original point was.

I've given you all the known and unknown elements of the universe including planets, stars, asteroids, comets, and unexplainable phenomena including the existence of life itself, none of which can be explained by any process of evolution. I think this is pretty strong evidence. Isn't it at all pertinent that the biological products of the process of evolution had to start from something?

All of which has nothing to do with evolution. Expecting evolution to explain those is about the same as expecting cellular biology to explain solar flares. Evolution deals with the change in genetics over time. It has nothing to do with cosmology, it has nothing to do with the origin of life. Before life, there was no evolution

You tried to support the original claim, so that is the argument that I'm following. If that isn't what you meant, then maybe you should be more careful when you jump in. I'm trying to stick to the original point. You seem to want to go off onto other points.

I'm sorry. I thought I was discussing the topic. I didn't realize that you had set boundaries that cannot be crossed. My apologies for jumping in and interrupting the discussion with a different perspective. I will withdraw until given permission to return.

You tried supporting the original claim. I asked you for evidence to support your position. You never gave any evidence, despite saying that "something else" was both obvious and proveable.

Then you were reduced to arguments from incredulity. You tried pointing out things that evolution may not explain and things unrelated to evolution, and tried using that as a reason for there being some sort of supernatural force that guides everything.

That's not a different perspective, that's avoiding the point.

So, again I ask, can you give any evidence supporting your position? Not possible problems with evolution, but something that supports your position.

 

[Slantedfacts]

OKAY! So the basis of this topic is that science has as many missing facts as the Bible.

With Creation - there is no substantial proof

With Science - there are missing links that fail to substantiate this theory

So, in conclusion one can surmise that it depends on where you want to place your faith!

 

[tecoyah]

OKAY! So the basis of this topic is that science has as many missing facts as the Bible.

Uh...No, Sorry. Science is a series of facts....filled in with hypothesis in an attempt to link the facts into theory and law. Thus science "EXPECTS" to have missing Data....and always will ....this is how science works. The Bibles are a series of Mythologies, which we try to work scientific fact into.

With Creation - there is no substantial proof
Agreed

With Science - there are missing links that fail to substantiate this theory
Science is not a theory, it is a process.

So, in conclusion one can surmise that it depends on where you want to place your faith!

Agreed I just want to place my faith in those things that can be touched and seen.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Intelligent design is as much a probability as anything else that we can deduce but cannot prove. Because you cannot prove it or I cannot prove it does not mean it does not exist. I have no problem accepting that I cannot prove it and have said that again and again even as you cast aspersions on my credibility and logic. I only have problems with those who cannot accept possibilities as worthy of consideration.

There are infinite possibilities that have no evidence, you would have us consider every possibility, even those without evidence? From a scientist standpoint, that's stupid. To consider something with no evidence is dreaming.

I've given you all the known and unknown elements of the universe including planets, stars, asteroids, comets, and unexplainable phenomena including the existence of life itself, none of which can be explained by any process of evolution. I think this is pretty strong evidence. Isn't it at all pertinent that the biological products of the process of evolution had to start from something?

Planets, stars asteroids, comets are part of astronomy, or even physics, not biology. Why would the theory of evolution explain them? It's like saying that the theory of gravity should be able to explain why cows eat grass.

Why life exists is not explained by the theory of evolution, there is no reason. The theory of evolution is about evolution not anything else.

It's very important to learn what evolution actually is before you start bashing it.

OKAY! So the basis of this topic is that science has as many missing facts as the Bible.

With Creation - there is no substantial proof

With Science - there are missing links that fail to substantiate this theory

So, in conclusion one can surmise that it depends on where you want to place your faith!

Thank you for discrediting all creationist/religious people once more (harsh, but true).

Corrected post:
Creation - No substantial or otherwise significant evidence (much less proof).

Evolution - Substantial evidence, (All significant flaws found belong to theory of universe formation and abiogenesis, and have nothing to do with evolution, or sometimes even biology :doh) some negligible flaws.

Simply and Scientifically, evolution is irrefutable.

 

[Slantedfacts]

There are infinite possibilities that have no evidence, you would have us consider every possibility, even those without evidence? From a scientist standpoint, that's stupid. To consider something with no evidence is dreaming.


Planets, stars asteroids, comets are part of astronomy, or even physics, not biology. Why would the theory of evolution explain them? It's like saying that the theory of gravity should be able to explain why cows eat grass.

Why life exists is not explained by the theory of evolution, there is no reason. The theory of evolution is about evolution not anything else.

It's very important to learn what evolution actually is before you start bashing it.


Thank you for discrediting all creationist/religious people once more (harsh, but true).

Corrected post:
Creation - No substantial or otherwise significant evidence (much less proof).

Evolution - Substantial evidence, (All significant flaws found belong to theory of universe formation and abiogenesis, and have nothing to do with evolution, or sometimes even biology :doh) some negligible flaws.

Simply and Scientifically, evolution is irrefutable.

The Following Comment is nothing less that a blatant lie!

Simply and Scientifically, evolution is irrefutable​

Until an accurate time line can be recreated - it's JUST a FANTASY!

There are too many links which as of yet have NOT been found !

Until it is CONCLUSIVE - it is JUST a cute (I think it is) theory - NOTHING MORE!

Come on - look at the reputation of science - Through out history they have dispelled many of their OWN FACTS!

 

[steen]

OKAY! So the basis of this topic is that science has as many missing facts as the Bible.

What do you mean with "missing facts"? And are you now talking about all of science?

With Creation - there is no substantial proof

With Science - there are missing links that fail to substantiate this theory

untrue. You are making an outright misrepresentation.

So, in conclusion one can surmise that it depends on where you want to place your faith!

No, it depends on wheter you provide a honest representation of science or whether you deliberately misrepresent science in order to push the politics of your faith.

 

[steen]

The Following Comment is nothing less that a blatant lie!

Simply and Scientifically, evolution is irrefutable​

Until an accurate time line can be recreated - it's JUST a FANTASY!

Your claim is false. Evolution doesn't need a 'timeline." All it neads is two generations, that is all. You seem to be very confused and incredibly ignorant of what Evolution actually is. Don't you think you should figure out what it is before showing your ignorance by trying to bach what doesn't exist to begin with, namely your false misrepresentation of Evolution?

There are too many links which as of yet have NOT been found !

Why are they needed? Don't you know what Evolution is? Your claims again indicate a serious and fundamental ignorance of what you try to speak about.

Until it is CONCLUSIVE - it is JUST a cute (I think it is) theory - NOTHING MORE!

Your now self-professed ignorance of the Scientific Method is duly noted.

Come on - look at the reputation of science - Through out history they have dispelled many of their OWN FACTS!

Such as?