Creationist vs Evolutionist

last SG · 2004-09-27T14:43:04+00:00

Hi guys... Hmm... think this has turned from a friendly discussion into something less than pleasant to see... Guess it'll all stop right here.

Poopie-Head SG

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of sciencein science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

This is the reason why Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science. Wink

sillyme SG

Do you agree that certain areas of evolution cannot be “testable”?? Because too much information is lacking.

Poopie-Head SG

This sudden 'pop out' of a new and completely different species is actually the expected result of ideas such as Creationism. If Creationists wanted to prove themselves, they could show evidences of such phenomenon.

If they did in fact 'pop out' suddenly then we can throw those books on Evolution away. Laughing

stupidissmart SG

Do you agree that certain areas of evolution cannot be "testable"?? Because too much information is lacking

It is very testable. If there is a species tat does not follow evolution, then it can be thrown off.

U r talking about intelligent design, creationism and not god right ? Then if there is an intelligent designer, we should expect things to pop out suddenly at any time, not distant past isn't it ? One second before the field contains only wheat. Then suddenly 1 second after *Poof* a tree bearing ranbutan the size of watermelons will appear everywhere ! Why doesn't we see such phenomenons in written history ? In fact there should *Poof* suddenly come out with a fish tat look like a rabbit too. Why can't we see such creation in written history ?

sillyme SG

Please elaborate

Poopie-Head SG

Which areas are you referring to?

Are you refering to "macro-evolution "? If so, I would suggest reading this . There is basically no reason why micro-evolution is accepted while macro-evolution is not. There is no known barrier to hinder macro-evolution, thus there is no reason to belief the change accumulated by micro-evolution cannot be carried over, resulting in a much larger change over longer time. Macro-evolution is just a term used to describe evolution at or above the species level.

stupidissmart SG

Simple… u just pick put any living beings and is there signs tat it is created and not evolved. If it is created, then is should have be completely different from other animals past and present. If it appears to have DNA and gene link to another speicies past and present, then it is probably evolved. U try tat for all the living beings in the world and tis is probably true.

sillyme SG

Just to clarify things or mention it again.

1) Creation was only necessary to "get things going". After that there is not purpose to creating new life.

2) Creation doesn't mean turning fishes to rabbits nor rambutans to watermelons. That is fairy tale.

3) The DNA is not drastically different because as science has already proven for life to exist, certain basic component must be present. A creator would have known that when creating. Similar DNA is not a proof of evolution, it is common because it is essential to life.

4) Evolution can be a process after creation is completed. The whole details of evolution, that I'm not sure.

My point is, some of us are not saying evolution did not happen. We're saying there is a creation process and evolution probably is part of it too. My guess why the bible has very details about creation is probably because

1) It's not essential to know the details. It's only critical to know who created it. (maybe God is creating job opportunes for evolutionist? Razz Razz Razz )

2) Genesis is largely credited to Moses and he's not a scientist.

Don't you all agree there are many gaps yet filled? But it really doesn't rule out creation. And maybe we'll never know the full details.

Thanks for reading it again. Razz

sillyme SG

When I asked about evolution being testable, I was asking if science can do an experiement to proof the process of evolution? For example, an accelerated process of one species evolving to another? Maybe a full-grown animal is impossible, but single cell organism is perhaps feaesible.

stupidissmart SG

Creation was only necessary to "get things going". After that there is not purpose to creating new life.

I have mention about Intelligent Design, which is some beings creating life. Tis being may not be the god u describe as. Why won't it create new life ? Why is there no purpose in creating new lives ? Intelligent design never meant tat it will not start all over again isn't it ?

Creation doesn't mean turning fishes to rabbits nor rambutans to watermelons. That is fairy tale.

Maybe the examples given r a bit exaggerated... Laughing However why can't tat happened ? Platypus is one wierd looking animal too, how come it suddenly get popped out too ? If u ask me, durian look more wierder than a rambutan tat is the size of watermelons.

The DNA is not drastically different because as science has already proven for life to exist, certain basic component must be present. A creator would have known that when creating. Similar DNA is not a proof of evolution, it is common because it is essential to life.

Why should it be ? Why can't it create life tat work totally differently ? Why should it be similar in DNA ? Why can't life be sillicon-based instead of carbon based ? Thgere is no reason to do tat isn't it ? The strong links between each other is already a good evidence tat life originate from the same point isn't it ?

Evolution can be a process after creation is completed. The whole details of evolution, that I'm not sure

Since u believe in evolution, why not believe it fully ? Why must u insists tat the bible is right when it had been proven wrong ?

It's not essential to know the details. It's only critical to know who created it. (maybe God is creating job opportunes for evolutionist

They have given something totally contradictory to it. They have specifically mentioned tat men is made from dust and breath and built within a day. It is wrong ! It is not about the details anymore u know. It is about wrong and right !

Genesis is largely credited to Moses and he's not a scientist.

Moses write with the inspiration of god. God is indirectly writing it. God should definitely know wat is he doing isn't it ?

Don't you all agree there are many gaps yet filled? But it really doesn't rule out creation. And maybe we'll never know the full details.

Gap ??!? Wat gap ?? I can onyl see gap in creationism

If u meant tat, I thought poopie head has already told u tat some experiments in a lab has proven evolution ?

sillyme SG

If you're asking about an intelligent designer other than God of the Bible, then I don't know why they stop creating. Perhaps you can try to find out from them if you bump into them lor. Or ask the UFO fanatics Razz

If you're asking about why life can't be based on another element, it beats me too. Yes it proofs originates from the same point, it can also mean that it's from a same designer. As stated, some "proofs" lead in both direction. I also mentioned before that new creatures discovered doesn't proof evolution nor creation. It's just that it's never been found before. But thank you for bringing it up for the sake of others.

I still believe in the bible because I know I have yet to know all things and I enjoy being a Christian.

Of course God knows everything. But imagine Him telling whoever scribing the bible about carbonates, rib bones, brain functions, etc. the bible would need a lot DVDs to store all the information. I think it's not available at that time.

There are gaps in evolution. If not, please state the full time line. State from what organism evolve to which other species in full detail. If there experiments, then please make known the whitepaper to read on. Please take note that by saying there are gaps, I'm not saying that evolutionist untrue, lest that you think I saying you're lying.

stupidissmart SG

So from the way u say tis, u do not believe in an intelligent designer other than he is god ?

If you're asking about why life can't be based on another element, it beats me too. Yes it proofs originates from the same point, it can also mean that it's from a same designer. As stated, some "proofs" lead in both direction. I also mentioned before that new creatures discovered doesn't proof evolution nor creation. It's just that it's never been found before. But thank you for bringing it up for the sake of others.

Coming from the same point is valid. Coming from the same designer may not be so. Why do u think a designer is limited with the "materials" ? He will be limited only if he isn't so intelligent afterall to made use of other elements.

Coming out with a totally new creatures (meaning DNA sequence etc is totally different) can be a conclusive evidence tat evolution is wrong. Tis is never found. Isn't tis a sign tat creationism is wrong ?

Of course God knows everything. But imagine Him telling whoever scribing the bible about carbonates, rib bones, brain functions, etc. the bible would need a lot DVDs to store all the information. I think it's not available at that time.

As said before, he is not omitting facts. He was giving contradictory facts. Its is not about having many DVDs to hold all the theories... no one expect it to be so. It is about not lying to people. Don't come and tell things tat was wrong.

There are gaps in evolution. If not, please state the full time line. State from what organism evolve to which other species in full detail. If there experiments, then please make known the whitepaper to read on. Please take note that by saying there are gaps, I'm not saying that evolutionist untrue, lest that you think I saying you're lying.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

U satisfied with tis timeline ? For experiments u had to ask poopie head for one.

sillyme SG

Not really. A convicing one would be a related proof for every event stated

It doesn't prove creationism is wrong at all. Using almost the same materials but having immense variety is also an intelligence by itself.

This answer is obvious as I'm a Christian

Maybe one day, everything will be revealed. Then the contradictions will be cleared up.

Poopie-Head SG

"Just to clarify things or mention it again.

1) Creation was only necessary to "get things going". After that there is not purpose to creating new life. "

There are basically 2 ways to go about it - one of them is just like what you mentioned, Creation is only done at the beginning. The other idea being that Creation can happen even after the first 6 days. However, both explanations can be seen to be flawed.

- If Creation is only at beginning, then there should be very distinct classes separating the species. However, some organisms are very hard to tell apart from another. There are obvious cases of overlap, suggesting Evolution as the more probable explanation. Furthermore, the time difference between existence of certain life forms are evident, for e.g. Dinosaurs and Man dont exist at the same time. Therefore, they couldnt be created at the same time.

- If Creation can happen anytime, then we should expect to see drastic and totally different organisms from time to time. So far, no record of such sightings.

So which option are you gonna take? Wink

"2) Creation doesn't mean turning fishes to rabbits nor rambutans to watermelons. That is fairy tale. "

As I was saying, if we do see fishes turning into rabbits in a single generation, that is proof of creation, and we can throw our evolution books away. However, Creation do suggest it is possible (read above why I say this), yet it has never been observed.

"3) The DNA is not drastically different because as science has already proven for life to exist, certain basic component must be present. A creator would have known that when creating. Similar DNA is not a proof of evolution, it is common because it is essential to life. "

If you are talkin about DNA, you are talking about Intelligent Design. If designs are so intelligent, why do u think we have so many organisms with redundant organs, organisms with organs serving the same purpose but 'designed' differently, organisms with weaknesses against viruses and other natural diseases? Also, SIS' comments on similar DNA is important because if there was indeed a Creator/Designer and we found organisms with totally different DNA, then we can prove the Common Descent to be false (a big blow to evolution).

"4) Evolution can be a process after creation is completed. The whole details of evolution, that I'm not sure.

My point is, some of us are not saying evolution did not happen. We're saying there is a creation process and evolution probably is part of it too. My guess why the bible has very details about creation is probably because

1) It's not essential to know the details. It's only critical to know who created it. (maybe God is creating job opportunes for evolutionist? )

2) Genesis is largely credited to Moses and he's not a scientist.

Don't you all agree there are many gaps yet filled? But it really doesn't rule out creation. And maybe we'll never know the full details. "

Yes, there are many gaps not yet filled. However, Science dont just throw everything into a blackbox and called it creation (or watever). This is obviously the easy way out.

The point is like what I've said before: Creationism (and Intelligent Design) is not falsifiable, i.e. there is NO WAY !! to proof Creation is wrong. That is why it is NOT science. Because ALL scientific theories are falsifiable - there is a boundary or fundamental principle such that if things happen beyond what has been predicted in these theories, they are proven wrong. There is NO WAY Creation and ID can be proven wrong. I give you an example:

Example:
We have a time machine and we can view and even take samples of all that has happened pre-historic at our will. We see the slow and gradual evolution of mankind, each time this particular primate species reproduce, they are closer to modern man. Finally, modern man emerges, but you will say: "NO!! This modern man is 'Created'! He might be evolved but he is still a Creation by God!" You see? There is no way to argue against this claim, and proof Creation wrong.

Another Example:
Abiogenesis - the creation of life from non-life. Even in the lab or back in millions of years when life first emerged. The transition from non-life to life, one moment non-living, the next moment it is a living organism. You'll say: "NO ~! This is a Creation at work! God gave life. Even if you can produce life from non-life in lab, it is still God who gives the final breathe of life into this organism!" Again there is no arguement possible against this claim to prove it wrong.

Although the above examples are 'fairy tale', it should give you the impression what is meant by unfalsifiable. Creation is exactly that! On the other hand, all scientific theories, including Evolution, can be tested or proven to be false.

Creation involves supernatural. An area forever unknown to man. Even if we were finally able to know all the workings in this universe, there is still the hypothesis of a higher being and no way to proof it wrong, since the very simple reasoning behind it is: it is beyond your knowledge and reasoning.

THAT is why Creation is a fairy tale.

Devil1976 SG

Still haven't 'gong' finish ar....? Mr. Green

Poopie-Head SG

double post

Poopie-Head SG

Testable does not necessarily means done in a lab. That is a very narrow view. I quote again:

By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis.

However, in regards to observed evolution, there are too many to list here. You can read more from here

Rest assured that many experiments with successful observations of evolution or speciation were also done.

Poopie-Head SG

Do you think that the idea of writing needs to be passed on from person to person? Or the idea of communicating (language) and the recording of it (writing) cannot be established by the individual 'tribes' separately?

The fact that we have different languages today is a good example that languages and writings can be developed independantly. (Although there are obvious cases that some langauges are influenced by others.)

The 1000 years of difference dont make any significance here, and it does not suggest anything other than the people living in the regions such as China and Eygpt were one of the first to establish such a system.

sillyme SG

I'm sorry poopie, but I do not see a link about creation suggests that fishes can turn into rabbits. I never had the impression that creation is such and here I'd like to clarify it's not. It is not making one species turn to another. However, macro-evolution does suggest that is possible.

Of course dinosaurs and man are not created at the same time, even the bible doesn't suggest that. Whether the six days mentioned is literally six days, that is another issue. Regarding some organisms not being very distinct, again like I said, it could be a basic class of organism created and thereafter they change and adapt. Again, creation does not require that DNAs between species to be drastically different.

Like I said, creating something doesn't mean you have to make things totally different at the DNA level. Everything has to have a foundation for life.

I thank you for your effort to read and share. You're free to think that creation is fairy tale. I chose to be rooted in my faith. In both faith and science, I will accept the knowledge I discover with prudence.

the.raven SG

evolution is not about a species suddenly turning into another. if u think like "but how do fish turn into rabbit LOL?" its because Fish cant turn into rabbit. somewhere along the evolutionary line there had been a separation, there came fish ancestors and maybe mammal ancestors, and fish ancestors became fish, mammal ancestors had more separations and some became rabbit ancestors, and some others maybe cat ancestors, dog ancestors etc. then rabbit ancestors became rabbit.

just like Man didnt come from monkeys, somewhere in the evolutionary line there were homo erectus and lower apes, then homo erectus evolved into humans and apes remained as apes since they are already adapted into the environment or whatever. however, humans and apes might have shared the same kind of ancestor somewhere too.

this are not baseless assumptions, there are some evidence that scientists use such as fossils or whatever I dunno.

« Previous Page Next Page »