Evolution V Creation

[Tiberius]

Please explain why you think that the chances of their being many first ancestors is almost impossible.

I already explained this.

Any evidence you have presented so far is not inconsistent with this.

Unfortunately for you, it is. In previous discussions, I have pointed out to you that the fossil record does not show humanity being a "first lifeform", nor does it show any cats or dogs. From the layering of the fossil record, the dating of each layer (which is accurate by the way), and the dispersion of DNA in current lifeforms, we can make conclusions about what is more likely to have happened. Either God put all the fossils there to trick us, and created all the life forms as they were made today, or they evolved like every other life-form.

Anyway, take your reference to the flood, I think that the great majority of the geologic column is evidence of the Biblical flood.

How did it form layers in one flood? Why are there less developed creatures further down? Why are differently sized animals found in the same layers (i.e. if you are going with the "floating carcasses" theory creationists love to peddle, why are there remains of large dinosaurs alongside those of smaller animals).

I'd love to hear your answers, considering I've given you the evidence to the contrary.

[Minimalist]

Oh boy! A creationist with the "geologic column" argument.





I can hardly wait.

[tavarish]

Did you know Noah was 600 years old when he built the Ark?

Did you know that all the animals came to him?

Did you know that incest was A-OK cause they had lots of genetic material to go around to repopulate the whole of humanity?

THIS IS STUFF YOU NEED TO KNOW, PEOPLE!!




Now who are you going to believe, God, or the scientists?

God did it, I believe it, That settles it!

[Minimalist]

Did you know Noah was 600 years old when he built the Ark?

Fuck. I'm only 60 and it's an effort to put on my socks in the morning. Noah must have been on steroids.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Is it just me,or does anyone else think this way?---


There is not now and there has never been a debate between evolution and creationism.

Evolution is a scientific theory. IE based on evidence. It is not an hypothesis. For reasonings passing all understanding, most creationists seem incapable of grasping the difference.

Creationism is a religious doctrine based on a literal interpretation of the mythology of a minor tribe of bronze age goat herders.It unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Just as I decline to argue with flat earthers and other fruit loops, I decline to argue with creationists.

[Minimalist]

No, Padraic, it is not just you.

Judge Jones in the Dover school board case ruled:

H. Conclusion

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/ki....html#p294

[Zen Badger]

I do not think there is incontrovertible evidence for any of it (from my side or yours). Anything I could throw at you, evidence wise, you would merely reinterpret based on your own worldview and likewise with you throwing evidence my way.

My favorite bit of incontrovertible evidence is the sheer size of the observable universe.

Afterall if it was only six thousand years old we would only see that much.

Not the billions of light years that we can see.

Feel free to reinterpret it if you wish.

(Maybe I would be wrong on this if we did find a dinosaur fossil with a saddle , but no such thing has been found as far as I know.) Anyway, take your reference to the flood, I think that the great majority of the geologic column is evidence of the Biblical flood whereas I would guess that you would interpret the geologic column as evidence of millions of years of uniformitarian processing. So while I look at the geologic column as confirming what the Bible said about the flood, I am guessing that you look at it as evidence that the Bible is wrong. It is because we are looking at the same thing but with different starting points.

And how does the geologic column provide evidence in support of the bible?

While I do consider the Bible to be sufficient in itself, I am not left with that as I think there are things that confirm what the Bible says (note my comments about the flood). But that doesn't mean that someone who does not believe in the Bible cannot come up with some other explanation for anything I take as confirming the Bible either.

I hope this explains my position better for you.

So you have other evidence apart from the geologic column?

Let us see it then.

Are you ever going to address my question as to how your first principles accounts for logic, mathematics, and morals?

When you tell me why it is relevent to this thread.

[Darwinian]

My favourite proof for evolution being true is that it is a falsifiable scientific theory that has stood up to all the tests made of it and is backed up by at least 150 years of study made by countless intelligent, diligent and fastidious individuals who have dedicated their lives to the truth as opposed to creationism which is an ancient story written down by desert tribes people who simply couldn't have known any better that we are supposed to believe without question because is has been written down in an ancient book and must be true because it is the word of an omnipotent, omniscient entity who inspired the writing of this book that we know to be true because the book tells us so.

At some point you really do have to wake up and inhale the heady aromas of that freshly brewed coffea arabica.

[tavarish]

My favourite proof for evolution being true is that it is a falsifiable scientific theory that has stood up to all the tests made of it and is backed up by at least 150 years of study made by countless intelligent, diligent and fastidious individuals who have dedicated their lives to the truth as opposed to creationism which is an ancient story written down by desert tribes people who simply couldn't have known any better that we are supposed to believe without question because is has been written down in an ancient book and must be true because it is the word of an omnipotent, omniscient entity who inspired the writing of this book that we know to be true because the book tells us so.

At some point you really do have to wake up and inhale the heady aromas of that freshly brewed coffea arabica.

This.

[KichigaiNeko]

My favourite proof for evolution being true is that it is a falsifiable scientific theory that has stood up to all the tests made of it and is backed up by at least 150 years of study made by countless intelligent, diligent and fastidious individuals who have dedicated their lives to the truth as opposed to creationism which is an ancient story written down by desert tribes people who simply couldn't have known any better that we are supposed to believe without question because is has been written down in an ancient book and must be true because it is the word of an omnipotent, omniscient entity who inspired the writing of this book that we know to be true because the book tells us so.

At some point you really do have to wake up and inhale the heady aromas of that freshly brewed coffea arabica.

Cue the Feegles!! http://www.paulkidby.com/feegles/index.html

(Any Whiskey / Sheep Linement in that coffee?)