Creationism vs. Evolutionism.. What stance do you take? - Page 3

September 30, 2012 @ 04:35 PM

99%Shit

Post: 2452

Join Date: Oct 2009

Location: Ontario

And how do you know that the world didn't have more water thousands of year ago?

Lolwut? Where did it go? Space? Oh man...

Imagine Katrina happened before we had satellite imagery and what not. If you lived in the epicentre of that hurricane/flood, you'd think the WHOLE world flooded. because your VISIBLE world flooded. Remember, the Earth was considered to be flat by many up until ~500 years ago.

narsha.narsha.narsha

September 30, 2012 @ 04:50 PM

Miles_Morales

Post: 346

Join Date: Jan 2012

Location: US

"the great thing about science it that, regardless if you agree or not, it's true"

September 30, 2012 @ 05:51 PM

slap

Post: 3549

Join Date: Oct 2010

Location: sgv.la

And how do you know that the world didn't have more water thousands of year ago?

Lolwut? Where did it go? Space? Oh man...

Imagine Katrina happened before we had satellite imagery and what not. If you lived in the epicentre of that hurricane/flood, you'd think the WHOLE world flooded. because your VISIBLE world flooded. Remember, the Earth was considered to be flat by many up until ~500 years ago.

Or maybe the water is still here? I mean were mountains as tall, and the oceans as deep back then?

Karmaloop/Plndr Rep: SLAP20.

September 30, 2012 @ 05:55 PM

ilykejordans

Post: 276

Join Date: Dec 2008

1 Man built an arch that was capable of housing 2 of every animal in the word. Damn, that sounds so believable!

http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

or

http://creation.com/noahs-ark-questions-and-answers

oh and an index of other fun reads
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index
http://creation.com/creation-answers

you must be dumb af to actually believe these haha

September 30, 2012 @ 06:11 PM

LaurenHillsPubes

Post: 207

Join Date: Oct 2010

Most scientists agree that there was a great flood throughout the Earth at the same time that the Bible describes the story of Noah and the Ark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

All the deluge/flood myths are localised. Even if all the water locked up in ice and the atmosphere went into the ocean, the Earth would NOT be flooded.

Just saying. Using wiki as a reference in any kind of argument reduces the legitimacy of your claims.

September 30, 2012 @ 06:15 PM

99%Shit

Post: 2452

Join Date: Oct 2009

Location: Ontario

Or maybe the water is still here? I mean were mountains as tall, and the oceans as deep back then?

~6000 years ago? Not too much has changed since then, except for the possibility of there actually being MORE liquid water nowadays. Ice caps have been receding since the Ice Age ended, which means more liquid water. More liquid water means more evaporation, which means more precipitation. Now, if you're still following, that's going to mean more flooding, more storms, more stories about the 'Great Deluge'. They are stories, stories of isolated incidents not of a global flood.

narsha.narsha.narsha

September 30, 2012 @ 06:16 PM

99%Shit

Post: 2452

Join Date: Oct 2009

Location: Ontario

Just saying. Using wiki as a reference in any kind of argument reduces the legitimacy of your claims.

Oh?

Citations
^ Leeming, David (2004). "Flood | The Oxford Companion to World Mythology". Oxfordreference.com. Retrieved 17 September 2010.
^ Bandstra 2009, p. 61, 62.
^ Pritchard, James B. (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955, 1969). 1950 1st edition at Google Books. p.44: "...a flood [will sweep] over the cult-centers; to destroy the seed of mankind; is the decision, the word of the assembly [of the gods]."
^ The great flood – Hindu style (Satapatha Brahmana).
^ Matsya Britannica.com
^ Klaus K. Klostermaier (2007). A Survey of Hinduism. SUNY Press. p. 97. ISBN 0-7914-7082-2.
^ Sunil Sehgal (1999). Encyclopaedia of Hinduism: T-Z, Volume 5. Sarup & Sons. p. 401. ISBN 81-7625-064-3.
^ Cotter, David W. (2003). Genesis. Collegeville (Minn.): Liturgical press. p. 49. ISBN 0814650406.
^ Bandstra 2009, p. 61: (Parrot, 1955)
^ Bandstra 2009, p. 62.
^ Castleden, Rodney (2001) "Atlantis Destroyed" (Routledge).
^ Scott Carney (November 7, 2007). "Did a comet cause the great flood?". Discover Magazine. Retrieved 17 September 2010.
^ Early days among the Cheyanne & Arapahoe Indians by John H. Seger, page 135 ISBN 0-8061-1533-5
^ "'Noah's Flood' Not Rooted in Reality, After All?" National Geographic News, February 6, 2009.
^ Sarah Hoyle (November 18, 2007). "Noah's flood kick-started European farming". University of Exeter. Retrieved 17 September 2010.

All the info on Wiki matches up with old fashioned textbook learning I did in World Religions too.

Wiki > Creation.com

narsha.narsha.narsha

September 30, 2012 @ 06:33 PM

LaurenHillsPubes

Post: 207

Join Date: Oct 2010

@izuna speak for yourself bruh. I didn't come from a fuckin monkey. At no point in time did humans every evolve from apes/monkeys, are you familiar with the term missing link/common ancestor?
Evolution is adaptive not progressive, but you knew that because you're so into science and fact.
Btw the "universe" picture you have as a reference is a computer simulation of what might have been by scientists.

I'm a christian which is why i dont go around bashing peoples religion. And yes i came into the religion myself after reading the quran, upanishads, torah, vedas, talmud, 8 fold, bible and sitting in on local atheist debates. I had to learn hebrew, aramaic with a tutor to get through the quran, judaic branches. There is so much lost in translation or simply misconstrued it doesn't surprise me people dont agree with it so much. But i care not. For those who say you cant lead a happy religious life, you're full of it.

So go ahead and bash religion because you are entitled to that, but atleast know what you're speaking on.

September 30, 2012 @ 06:37 PM

Unown

Post: 125

Join Date: Sep 2012

"the great thing about science it that, regardless if you agree or not, it's true"

It's not always true, sometimes it is proven to be false later. Scientists are open to someone proving them wrong.
"If you thought that science was certain -- well, that is just an error on your part." Feynman

September 30, 2012 @ 06:45 PM

LaurenHillsPubes

Post: 207

Join Date: Oct 2010

@99%shit and that's cool it has citations for all the work. I'm not agreeing nor am i agreeing to what you're saying.
But someone can write a proof on how mexicans are the laziest people ever and have "accredited" scientists claim that and have plenty of bigoted sources to claim such from years past. Would that make it true.
As truthful as wiki may be on SOME topics, it is never failproof and there's nothing like doing the research YOURSELF.

Btw a good number of the sources listed are obviously followers of the hindu religion, do you know their history? How much credibility do they have speaking on the issue? Were phrases taken out of context to better suit the argument?

Just saying. Not disagreeing, not agreeing. I'm just saying.

September 30, 2012 @ 06:45 PM

99%Shit

Post: 2452

Join Date: Oct 2009

Location: Ontario

are you familiar with the term missing link.

'Missing link'? Transitional fossils exist.

narsha.narsha.narsha

September 30, 2012 @ 06:50 PM

99%Shit

Post: 2452

Join Date: Oct 2009

Location: Ontario

From years past? The oldest citation is just over a decade old*. Do research on how Wikipedia works, and has worked for the past ~5 years. Wikipedia may be crowd-sourced, but there are very strict guidelines for editing articles and what are accepted sources. Pages are reviewed with regularity.

And the Hindu tellings of the Great Deluge are the oldest on record as far as I remember. I have not studied anything to do with Hinduism in at least 6 years, and never did I use any sources other than English sources, so if you want to use that 'against' me, feel free.

*Wait, saw the 50s source. I guess THAT one is potentially outdated.

narsha.narsha.narsha

September 30, 2012 @ 06:56 PM

LaurenHillsPubes

Post: 207

Join Date: Oct 2010

@h99%shit guhhh i meant just common ancestor, missing link was a brainfart sorry. My point was we're not derivative of anything resembling/embodying the modern ape/monkey. I think i was correct in saying that seeing as how he was comparing a modern ape and modern human saying how human the monkey looked.

I didn't know that about wiki thank you

you seem educated i appreciate your comments. And no i won't hold that against you i just think little things are lost in translation that SOMETIMES snowball.
Thanks again for your responses they're encouraging

September 30, 2012 @ 07:39 PM

Inactive

"Lil B is everything and nothing, alpha and omega, the beginning and the end" - God

September 30, 2012 @ 07:49 PM

The-Arm

Post: 226

Join Date: Aug 2009

Location: Aotearoa

Thoughts from a philosophical point of view....
Both evolution and creationism are scientific theories.
However true science does not proceed by means of theories being confirmed, but by means of theories falsified.
In saying this any vaguely formulated theory can be extremely difficult to falsify.

Note first of all that creationism is not particularly precisely stated.
Its difficult to say exactly what we should expect to observe given that creationism is true...this by its self makes creationism hard to falsify.

Secondly the method adopted by creationists is not to test their theory by trying to falsify it. Rather all their energies are expended trying to protect their theory from being falsified.
New bits are constantly being added to the basic creationist theory in order to account for what would otherwise be anomalous empirical data.

whether or not one is prepared to accept falsification as a general theory of how science proceeds, the fact that creationists method takes this form is fairly damning.

September 30, 2012 @ 08:30 PM

DREWBACCA

moderator

Post: 9203

Join Date: Oct 2007

Location: Fairfield/Long Beach...

Forum Administrator • @HOYITSDREW

September 30, 2012 @ 08:53 PM

gakidou134

Post: 130

Join Date: Nov 2010

cant tell if this is troll.

October 1, 2012 @ 04:52 AM

saurier

Post: 1444

Join Date: Dec 2008

Location: Fourbones

Thoughts from a philosophical point of view....
Both evolution and creationism are scientific theories.
However true science does not proceed by means of theories being confirmed, but by means of theories falsified.
In saying this any vaguely formulated theory can be extremely difficult to falsify.
.

Creationism isn't science. The supernatural has no place in science.

Theory in everyday use is different from a scientific theory. A theory in the scientific sense is the best explanation given the data that we have. Creationism does not have any data, the hypothesis that men were created by a supernatural being in their current form is untestable and therefore cannot be falsified, but that does not make it a theory.

I have no idea what you mean by science doesn't proceed by way of theories being confirmed, rather, by theories being falsified. Theories cannot be confirmed. They can only be strengthened by more evidence. Once repeatable experiment provides data that does not fit in line with the theory then it is changed or scrapped. Or falsified, I guess.

The Higgs Boson particle was a scientific theory for 30 years before the actual particle was observed because it was the best explanation for the data that we had, which was the behavior and properties of other subatomic particles. The observation of the actual particle is merely more evidence that supports the theory.

http://saurierco.com ///////////////////// Molosser Rex

October 1, 2012 @ 06:22 AM

The-Arm

Post: 226

Join Date: Aug 2009

Location: Aotearoa

@saurier
I am in no way promoting creationist views as I myself do not believe in them...
However creationism has its own institute as well as its own conferences, publications and PhD-qualified researchers, for those that follow creationism this is enough for them to deem it as science unfortunately.

I agree that theories cannot be confirmed that is why I have suggested falsification as a means to disprove a hypothesis.
I'll give an overly simplified example as I'm no scientist: An observation of an action unaccompanied by an equal and opposite reaction is enough to falsify the hypothesis that all actions are accompanied by equal and opposite reactions, yes?

This is not to say that all scientific hypothesis yet to be falsified are equally scientifically respectable, as I and I'm sure you would agree that some are more falsifiable than others.

October 1, 2012 @ 03:58 PM

zeezyo

Post: 2428

Join Date: Mar 2008

Location: san francisco

pika pika

X

October 1, 2012 @ 04:03 PM

saurier

Post: 1444

Join Date: Dec 2008

Location: Fourbones

@The-Arm

It was not my intention to imply that you were promoting creationist views, I was simply arguing semantics over the use of the word theory in your argument. Many people do not know what a theory is with regards to the scientific method, and it is this lack of understanding that gives them the false sense of "it's just a theory, it's not proven".

I think you've maybe worded your example wrong

An observation of an action unaccompanied by an equal and opposite reaction is enough to falsify the hypothesis that all actions are accompanied by equal and opposite reactions, yes?

Did you mean to say that an observation of an UNEQUAL reaction from an action would falsify the hypothesis that all reactions are accompanied by equal and opposite reactions? If that's what you meant, and the result was reliably reproduced by several independent sources and peer reviewed, then yes, that theory would be have to be reevaluated.

A good example is the Newtonian Laws of motion. You can make excellent predictions on the behavior of objects in different systems using these laws, because they assume that the universe is as we see it, a sort of rigid coordinate system, with space and time separated. Einstein showed with the theory of relativity that these laws do not apply when masses reach speeds close to that of the speed of light, and it completely changed the way we view the universe. However, the Newtonian Laws of motion still hold, and were only altered in some respects to account for speeds of near light speed.

Creation Ministries International has a list of about 200 PhD certified scientists that support creationism. 1/5 of these scientists have a degree in biological sciences, biochemistry, biophysics, or biology. The rest of the scientists could have degrees in anything. That is to say they could have degrees in relevant fields (computational chemistry, physics, etc.), or could have PhDs in psychology, womens studies, communication, business management, economics, whatever. There are a couple hundred thousand people with PhD degrees in the world. So the actual scientific support for creationism comes down to something like 0.015% of PhD holders around the world. Which, yes, unfortunately is enough for some to deem it science. However, the people that do deem it science have already come to their conclusions without examining the evidence, and anything that fits in with what they have already decided is used to enforce their view.

http://saurierco.com ///////////////////// Molosser Rex

October 1, 2012 @ 04:17 PM

bulmasaur

Post: 829

Join Date: Oct 2010

Location: Chicago

"google ad technology is internet karma b"

October 1, 2012 @ 05:15 PM

bobby

Post: 632

Join Date: Apr 2010

i believe evolution is a facet of creationism. anti-religious folks are sooo quick to take anything religiously related as a literal entity smh. things are figurative, symbolic. your mind isn't open until you understand that.

October 1, 2012 @ 09:53 PM

HVNGMVN

Post: 375

Join Date: Nov 2011

Location: Detroit

I dont believe in anything. I dont understand how an explosion can come from nothingness and create the universe nor do i understand a giant man in the sky determining fate.

Le Monde Est Á Nous

October 1, 2012 @ 10:36 PM

vapor90

Post: 317

Join Date: Nov 2011

Location: South Florida

both

October 1, 2012 @ 11:14 PM

WOLFdayz

Post: 829

Join Date: May 2011

Location: CANADA?

October 1, 2012 @ 11:20 PM

frizurd

Post: 580

Join Date: Oct 2007

I dont believe in anything. I dont understand how an explosion can come from nothingness and create the universe nor do i understand a giant man in the sky determining fate.

the big bang started with a white hole, which is the other end of a black hole
matter escaped from a parallel universe to another universe through a black hole
just a theory that I believe in

http://thatfix.com/ -- Your daily hip-hop & electronic music fix.

October 1, 2012 @ 11:29 PM

Cursed Assassin

Post: 3185

Join Date: Jun 2010

Location: Whore House

I dont believe in anything. I dont understand how an explosion can come from nothingness and create the universe nor do i understand a giant man in the sky determining fate.

the big bang started with a white hole, which is the other end of a black hole
matter escaped from a parallel universe to another universe through a black hole
just a theory that I believe in

I personally believe this white hole you speak of subsequently manifested from the parallel universe in which Super Buu disrupted the time space continuum during his fight with Gotenks, which incidentally lead to the formation of our current universe

Run away from the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, the land of the sinking sand

October 1, 2012 @ 11:44 PM

frizurd

Post: 580

Join Date: Oct 2007

I dont believe in anything. I dont understand how an explosion can come from nothingness and create the universe nor do i understand a giant man in the sky determining fate.

the big bang started with a white hole, which is the other end of a black hole
matter escaped from a parallel universe to another universe through a black hole
just a theory that I believe in

I personally believe this white hole you speak of subsequently manifested from the parallel universe where Super Buu disrupted the time space continuum during his fight with Gotenks which incidentally lead to the formation of our current universe

thats exactly what i meant
thank you for backing me up with scientific evidence

anyway, for the people who are interested
http://www.space.com/8293-universe-born-black-hole-theory.html
http://zazenlife.com/2011/12/05/the-white-hole-the-multiverse-theory/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

http://thatfix.com/ -- Your daily hip-hop & electronic music fix.

October 2, 2012 @ 09:11 AM

PrettyGawd

Post: 13

Join Date: Apr 2012

Location: Yass

Tide goes in, tide goes out.