Survey about creationism

[Tricky]

Horses are another lineage of animals that are very good for showing transitional fossils. There is a very good series fossils from different ages that not only show how the size of equines increased, but also their feet gradually migrated from a toed-foot to a hoof.

 

[Darwin]

"...There is no previous theory it is confirming or refuting, no rational basis to make the theory tenable, only blind acceptance that God faked all the evidence that proves it wrong. There can be no true theoretical progression in Creationism, because refutation of the theory of evolution does not add to the Bible. Refutation of Creationist theory is not met by anything but refutation of evolution or simple denial. This means that if you try to understand evolution from a Creationist's viewpoint, you will find mostly strawmen, and you will not gain any understanding..."

This sums it up in a nice manner.
In a way,creationist stand is seemingly strong because they remain relatively unharmed in the progress of debate.
Since their "theory" is not one,even though it is being called as such,they can feel free to look "from outside in" and bash evolutionary theory as much as they want-since they are coming from a non-falsifiable background.
Non-falsifiable being,all of the "evidence" that sometimes is brought up for creationism,is both literally impossible to check and based on my observations seems to be built on drilling holes to evo.theory which supposedly proves that creationist story suddenly becomes a law.Now if evo.theory was proved to be false,it still would not raise the prize of creation.
Badly flawed logic from the beginning.

 

[-=Vagrant=-]

Ruby, you should ponder why humans share _identical_ pseudogenes(genes that don't seem to work at all) with gorillas and chimps.
Common descent or God created us and gorillas with the same 'mistakes' in our DNA?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Correction, we have not yet found any transitional fossils.

I disagree. In fact we even have the descendants of possible transitionals walking around today.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Horses are another lineage of animals that are very good for showing transitional fossils. There is a very good series fossils from different ages that not only show how the size of equines increased, but also their feet gradually migrated from a toed-foot to a hoof.

Mostly, but not entirely true. Horse evolution has been without sight and braching because that's how evolution is. The fact that there is only one genus alive today shows only the fact that it's easy to draw a straight line to the root when there's only one branch left.

But, along with the whales, a good example anyway. BTW, has anyone read any follow up material on the recently discovered transitional sirieneans recently discovered (miocene of the carribean)?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

From a great site on the basics of horse evolution

 

[Tricky]

Ruby, you should ponder why humans share _identical_ pseudogenes(genes that don't seem to work at all) with gorillas and chimps.
Common descent or God created us and gorillas with the same 'mistakes' in our DNA?

This is very good V, but there is so much evidence for evolution that even Baptist schools (like Baylor, here in Texas) teach it because it is the only way that makes sense to explain many things. Among the pieces of evidence for evolution, (and excuse me because this is done from memory):

DNA similarities: Creatures that look alike have very similar DNA. The difference in human and chimp DNA is less than two percent.

Transitional fossils: (already discussed)

Homologous structures. Similar components of structures in different species. For example, the fin of the whale, the wing of a bat and the hand of a human have similar bone componants, although they are highly modified.

Relict structures: Humans have an appendix, which is of no apparent use, but many lower animals have a functional appendix which is used in digestion. Some primative snakes (pythons and boas) have a rudimentary pelvis. Some whales are born with tiny legs.

Ontogeny recapitulates phlogony: A fancy Latin phrase meaning that embryos go through various stages where they resemble lower animals. Human embryos at succesive stages resemble a colonial protozoan, a fish, a tadpole and a lower primate.

Observed evolution: We see evolution in action in a relatively short span of time, such as when we see certain pests develop resistance to pesticides.

There's much much more, but I don't want to bore you, Ruby. Examine any of these things and you will see that the wonders of evolution far surpass the stage magic of creationism. One of the added bonuses is that there are still so many things to learn about evolution. With creationism, there can never be any new information. If it's not in the Bible (or a similar book) it's not creationism.

 

[Jethro]

Here's a little talk origins piece on reconciling faith in God with knowledge of evolution.

 

[Dub]

I disagree. In fact we even have the descendants of possible transitionals walking around today.

I was refering to the mistaken belief that some people have that there should be 'transitional' fossils between every new phila (sp?) e.g. an exactly half-and-half fossil.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

If it weren't for the unfounded religious dogmas of the past and of today, then no one would be getting into these silly debates.

And by 'silly' I mean the creationists denying evolution for the sole reason of what a +1,000 year old book says despite all of overwhelming evidence for it.

This is why I have little tolerance for Roby-- this is silly. If you didn't have such STUPID, unfounded "faith" (or elected ignorance), then you would be truly open to the evidence. Ruby says she is, but then again, she believes in things without a drop of evidence, things that aren't even plausible!

It's funny, the creationists want to paint one grand conspiracy among biologists and scientists in general, on their websites littered with bible quotes, with scientific inaccuracies I could spot when I was six.

You know, there is another group I can think of that denies evolution because it conflicts with their baseless dogma-- the Raelians. Oddly enough, they try to disprove it too. And equally oddly enough, they do a "piss-poor" job of it.

Gee, all these people challenging evolution sure seem to have unscientific reasons for doing so... why is that, Ruby?

They are trying to PROTECT something. You should know that, you yourself have been in that positition, O mindless sheep.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I was refering to the mistaken belief that some people have that there should be 'transitional' fossils between every new phila (sp?) e.g. an exactly half-and-half fossil.

Sorry Dub, I missed the "those in the know" point you were making with that of creationists. I agree with you completely. The common "missing link" misconception doesn't apply.

I'll try and read for the deeper context next time.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

This is why I have little tolerance for Roby-- this is silly. If you didn't have such STUPID, unfounded "faith" (or elected ignorance), then you would be truly open to the evidence. Ruby says she is, but then again, she believes in things without a drop of evidence, things that aren't even plausible!

Her name is Ruby, not Roby and please don't transfer the malice you have for your mother to her. She's a fellow member of this forum who deserves your respect until she's earned such malice.

She hasn't yet.

 

[Dancing David]

The most telling flaw in creationsim is that there is this thing called selective breeding that shows the plastic nature of the genome.
Hey DC, I usually find your posts very funny, ripping into Ruby ain't fair. Just rip into the bible thumpers in general and I don't mind.
Why when i was a lad the mere mention of Chriatianity used to cause me to act like j. Knight except i spouted polemic against the church.
Classic quote: More abuse occurs in Sunday school every week than ever occured in any home.

Peace
dancing david

 

[c4ts]

The most telling flaw in creationsim is that there is this thing called selective breeding that shows the plastic nature of the genome.
Hey DC, I usually find your posts very funny, ripping into Ruby ain't fair. Just rip into the bible thumpers in general and I don't mind.
Why when i was a lad the mere mention of Chriatianity used to cause me to act like j. Knight except i spouted polemic against the church.
Classic quote: More abuse occurs in Sunday school every week than ever occured in any home.

Peace
dancing david

How could you take a Jedi-ish stance against religion without adopting another one and clinging to it in a febrile manner?

 

[Ruby]

Oh my goodness, you guys have given me a wealth of info. I have been looking up some stuff online, but my time is so limited with two little ones needing lots of my attention.

Please be patient with me....and my ignorance. I will try to respond to things when I can and feel I have more knowledge.

I really do appreciate the kindness shown to me in my clueless state.

 

[Ruby]

Creationism's theory, that God made the world according to the King James Version of the bible, is not a valid scientific theory. The only supporting evidence for it is a story in a book. There is no previous theory it is confirming or refuting, no rational basis to make the theory tenable, only blind acceptance that God faked all the evidence that proves it wrong.

It seems to me that the validity of the bible must be destroyed in order to believe in evolution. How does one do that? There is so much extra-biblical writings and history to back up a lot in the bible. There are even accounts of most of the deaths of the apostles in other writings. Then we have the Jewish religion....how we explain them?

Then there's archeological evidence.

Who would write the bible and why ....if it's not a historical book inspired by God?

 

[Martin]

It seems to me that the validity of the bible must be destroyed in order to believe in evolution

Why? Why can't you consider it a message from fallible humans who encoutered God? Within that there would be errors due to the understanding of the day. Accepting that doesn't change the basic message.

It's worth noting that the Universe as described in Genesis is nothing more than a rehash of existing Babylonian and Hebrew cosmologies. The Biblical view of the Universe is something like this -

How does one do that? There is so much extra-biblical writings and history to back up a lot in the bible

Well, much of the extra-biblical writing is irrelevant to the validity of the Bible. Most historical writings report the beliefs of Christians, not the events in which that belief is based.

There are even accounts of most of the deaths of the apostles in other writings

True. Unfortunately, the reports are widely divergent.

Then we have the Jewish religion....how we explain them?

How does one explain any religion?

Then there's archeological evidence

The city of Troy, once believed to be nothing more than legend, was discovered through information written in the Iliad. Does that mean that Zeus really exists? Archaeolgical evidence may support the more mundane parts of the Bible, but it lends no weight to the supernatural aspects.

Who would write the bible and why ....if it's not a historical book inspired by God?

Who knows? There are countless religious texts - they can't all be inspired by God.

In any case, if God created the Universe what better way to understand his creation than to study it? If God's creation and a book claiming to be God's word are in conflict, which should we believe?

 

[c4ts]

It seems to me that the validity of the bible must be destroyed in order to believe in evolution. How does one do that?

Can you come up with an experiment to test the validity of Genesis? If so, then it means that the rejection of the Bible is not necessary in the understanding of scientific theory, and evolution thereof.

There is so much extra-biblical writings and history to back up a lot in the bible. There are even accounts of most of the deaths of the apostles in other writings. Then we have the Jewish religion....how we explain them?

Then there's archeological evidence.

Are you talking about the validity of the entire bible being at stake? If so, then it is not the case, because evolution only provides a theoretical account which is different than the biblical account of Genesis. The lives and deaths of the apostles, the existence of the Jewish religion, are in fact valid archaeological evidence, but they do not have anything to do with proving or disproving Genesis in particular. The situation is not "either all of the bible is true or it isn't," because some parts can be historical accounts, and others can be pure mythology. There is currently no archaeological evidence supporting Genesis, and we have not even uncovered anything that could be the flaming sword which turns every which way to cast man out of Eden.

Who would write the bible and why ....if it's not a historical book inspired by God?

Who would write the bible if it were a historical book inspired by God? I fail to see the point of the question. Aren't all books, historical or otherwise, in some way inspired by God?

 

[Ruby]

The bing-bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Remeber, just because you cant make sense of the existence of the universe doesnt mean it cant be made sense of. Making up an answer, or believing in one that someone else has made up just because it appears to give you an answer is silly. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Chossing to believe in something just because it offers an answer is silly. Also, the 'Creator' answer, while appearing to provide an answer just misdirects the question. Saying "there was a creator" is not actually answering the question. You now have two further, unaswerable questions: 1) Who made the creator, and 2) Why did the creator make the universe. Of course, people reply "God has always been" or similar. If you can except this, why are scientific theories which propose an infinite universe unacceptable?
[/b]

If the bible is to be used as a guide, yes, God has always been. The universe was either a plan put into action or some sort of accident. I find it harder to believe in an accidental world than a Created world. I just don't have the faith for that at this time.

How can something so complex as this universe and it's population have come into being by chance. How can a mass of some sort of chemicals come together like magic to produce a living creature?

Please tell me you are joking!! Its no a case of having to believe man evolved from apes, it is fact. Ignoring it and thinking otherwise is delusional.

Delusional? The ape belief is a theory, not a fact. Most findings of ape-men have been proven to be frauds. Some of those have been *Ramapithecus* *Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)* *Piltdown man* *Neanderthal Man*. I'm sorry, but it sounds nuts to me that our morals and intellect was inherited from apes!

 

[Ruby]

Never good in science? Why am I NOT suprised?

You are not surprised because I have given you the evidence that I am not good in science.

Oh, you read some apologist book, and now you are convinced? You don't even know the basics of evolution.

I knew about evolution before I knew about creationism. But yes, I barely know the basics....due to not remembering those basics very well.

Ha! Man didn't evolve from apes, man evolved from a common ancestor with apes.

Would you mind explaining that further?