Evolution v Creationilism

Evolution v Creationilism

Posted in the Paris Forum

First Prev
of 22
Next Last

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1 Jan 14, 2013
So for school I came across a very interesting read and I wanted someone who believed in creationism to read and respond if they can. Not really looking for a fight, but wondering how reading this influences you.
Tell Us

Paris, TX

#2 Jan 15, 2013
Creationilism?
tabby

Saint Louis, MO

#3 Jan 15, 2013
tarabeth wrote:
So for school I came across a very interesting read and I wanted someone who believed in creationism to read and respond if they can. Not really looking for a fight, but wondering how reading this influences you.
Let's have it!:)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#4 Jan 15, 2013
tabby wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's have it!:)
Opps sorry! http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/alva...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#5 Jan 15, 2013
Tell Us wrote:
Creationilism?
Your so witty :) Creationism
Tell Us

Paris, TX

#6 Jan 15, 2013
tarabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
Your so witty :) Creationism
"Your" so witty??

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#7 Jan 15, 2013
Tell Us wrote:
<quoted text>
"Your" so witty??
Yep.
Chief Walksalot

Texarkana, AR

#8 Jan 15, 2013
Tara, don't let small minded people get you down. Over here in Texarkana, the local vocal christains (intentionally misspelled) have been determined to stop us progressives from having meetings or parties. Just read some of the hate in "any progressives in Texarkana" on the Texarkana forum. But then, it's long been known that TXK is one of the most backward towns you would never want to live in.
tabby

Saint Louis, MO

#9 Jan 15, 2013
tarabeth wrote:
So for school I came across a very interesting read and I wanted someone who believed in creationism to read and respond if they can. Not really looking for a fight, but wondering how reading this influences you.
I'm not sure what you mean by how does this article influence me. In my opinion, the article is inaccurate and assumes a pre suppositional world view.

What are your thoughts on the article?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10 Jan 15, 2013
tabby wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what you mean by how does this article influence me. In my opinion, the article is inaccurate and assumes a pre suppositional world view.
What are your thoughts on the article?
I thought they did a good job of presenting why they thought the way they did and how they arrived at the conclusions they did. Could you tell me why you thought they were basing the research off of a preexisting theory.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#11 Jan 15, 2013
tabby wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what you mean by how does this article influence me. In my opinion, the article is inaccurate and assumes a pre suppositional world view.
What are your thoughts on the article?
How old do you believe the Earth is?
tabby

Saint Louis, MO

#12 Jan 15, 2013
Nobody Gets It wrote:
<quoted text>
How old do you believe the Earth is?
The only thing I ask is if I answer questions posed to me that questions I ask will also be answered.
I'll answer you first since it's the simpler question (simpler to answer I mean). I think the earth is just under 6,000 years old. How old do you think it is?

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#13 Jan 15, 2013
tabby wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing I ask is if I answer questions posed to me that questions I ask will also be answered.
I'll answer you first since it's the simpler question (simpler to answer I mean). I think the earth is just under 6,000 years old. How old do you think it is?
I believe the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, which is the result of scientific testing and analysis of the evidence. I have no reason to believe otherwise, as there is no credible evidence to suggest anything else.
tabby

Saint Louis, MO

#14 Jan 15, 2013
tarabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought they did a good job of presenting why they thought the way they did and how they arrived at the conclusions they did. Could you tell me why you thought they were basing the research off of a preexisting theory.
"The theory had only gained widespread acceptance over the previous ten years"

Wide spread acceptance does not prove a statement's accuracy

"towards solving one of the great mysteries in Earth's history: What happened to the dinosaurs?"

This can never be proved. It happened in the past, not testable in a controlled enviornment.

"Science can test hypotheses about events that happened long ago."

This statement is VERY misleading. You cannot test historical science in a laboratory. Fact. It can't be done. For example, if an evolutionist claims that the earth's atmosphere contained w,x, y and z when evolutionary processes began, what they can test is if that combination of gases in the atmosphere CAN sustain life. It cannot prove that that is what the atmosphere consisted of because that was "millions" of years in the past, the past by definition cannot be tested in a laboratory. Operational science CAN be tested in a laboratory.

"Scientific ideas are tested with multiple lines of evidence. "

This is a straw-man. It leads one to think that historical evidences are proof of a given theory, they're not. Again, evidence by it's very nature must be interpreted and everyone interprets the evidence by what they believe. Another example, it wasn't very long ago, popular opinion was that red blood cells can't last for millions of years. So say if someone found a T-rex bone for example, that had viable red blood cells and tissue. An evolutionist would still not question the current popular opinion of the timeframe in which the T-rex's died out, because that would show evidence that their theory could be wrong. They would re-evaluate how long red blood cells and tissue could remain viable but not their timeframe of dinosaur extinction. By the way this is exactly what happened...google the work of Mary Schweitzer (an evolutionist)@ North Carolina State University.

"Science relies on communication within a diverse scientific community. "

Evolutionary scientist stifle opposing scientist that have a creation world view.

"Science often investigates problems that require collaboration from those in many different disciplines. "

See above answer.
tabby

Saint Louis, MO

#15 Jan 15, 2013
Nobody Gets It wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, which is the result of scientific testing and analysis of the evidence. I have no reason to believe otherwise, as there is no credible evidence to suggest anything else.


You are proving my point. ANALYSIS of the evidence. What is your definition of credible? Credible to who? There is no standard of credibility. You're using Alice in Wonderland Logic by avoiding discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards. In other words anything I say is wrong, therefore not credible, but whatever you say is right, therefore credible. Give me your "credible" evidence, let's look at.
tabby

Saint Louis, MO

#16 Jan 15, 2013
tabby wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionary scientist stifle opposing scientist that have a creation world view.
Sorry, meant to say opinions of those scientist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#17 Jan 15, 2013
tabby wrote:
<quoted text>
"The theory had only gained widespread acceptance over the previous ten years"
Wide spread acceptance does not prove a statement's accuracy
"towards solving one of the great mysteries in Earth's history: What happened to the dinosaurs?"
This can never be proved. It happened in the past, not testable in a controlled enviornment.
"Science can test hypotheses about events that happened long ago."
This statement is VERY misleading. You cannot test historical science in a laboratory. Fact. It can't be done. For example, if an evolutionist claims that the earth's atmosphere contained w,x, y and z when evolutionary processes began, what they can test is if that combination of gases in the atmosphere CAN sustain life. It cannot prove that that is what the atmosphere consisted of because that was "millions" of years in the past, the past by definition cannot be tested in a laboratory. Operational science CAN be tested in a laboratory.
"Scientific ideas are tested with multiple lines of evidence. "
This is a straw-man. It leads one to think that historical evidences are proof of a given theory, they're not. Again, evidence by it's very nature must be interpreted and everyone interprets the evidence by what they believe. Another example, it wasn't very long ago, popular opinion was that red blood cells can't last for millions of years. So say if someone found a T-rex bone for example, that had viable red blood cells and tissue. An evolutionist would still not question the current popular opinion of the timeframe in which the T-rex's died out, because that would show evidence that their theory could be wrong. They would re-evaluate how long red blood cells and tissue could remain viable but not their timeframe of dinosaur extinction. By the way this is exactly what happened...google the work of Mary Schweitzer (an evolutionist)@ North Carolina State University.
"Science relies on communication within a diverse scientific community. "
Evolutionary scientist stifle opposing scientist that have a creation world view.
"Science often investigates problems that require collaboration from those in many different disciplines. "
See above answer.
I don't understand. This is the way a theory works. First it starts out new and then more and more people begin to investigate it. As that happens the theory is either disproved or continues to be investigated.
Furthermore, if you had read the complete article you can see what they looked for to prove that something happened millions of years ago. I would invite you to go back and read the whole article. It takes about 20 minutes but some of your doubts will be relieved.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#18 Jan 15, 2013
tabby wrote:
<quoted text>
"The theory had only gained widespread acceptance over the previous ten years"
Wide spread acceptance does not prove a statement's accuracy
"towards solving one of the great mysteries in Earth's history: What happened to the dinosaurs?"
This can never be proved. It happened in the past, not testable in a controlled enviornment.
"Science can test hypotheses about events that happened long ago."
This statement is VERY misleading. You cannot test historical science in a laboratory. Fact. It can't be done. For example, if an evolutionist claims that the earth's atmosphere contained w,x, y and z when evolutionary processes began, what they can test is if that combination of gases in the atmosphere CAN sustain life. It cannot prove that that is what the atmosphere consisted of because that was "millions" of years in the past, the past by definition cannot be tested in a laboratory. Operational science CAN be tested in a laboratory.
"Scientific ideas are tested with multiple lines of evidence. "
This is a straw-man. It leads one to think that historical evidences are proof of a given theory, they're not. Again, evidence by it's very nature must be interpreted and everyone interprets the evidence by what they believe. Another example, it wasn't very long ago, popular opinion was that red blood cells can't last for millions of years. So say if someone found a T-rex bone for example, that had viable red blood cells and tissue. An evolutionist would still not question the current popular opinion of the timeframe in which the T-rex's died out, because that would show evidence that their theory could be wrong. They would re-evaluate how long red blood cells and tissue could remain viable but not their timeframe of dinosaur extinction. By the way this is exactly what happened...google the work of Mary Schweitzer (an evolutionist)@ North Carolina State University.
"Science relies on communication within a diverse scientific community. "
Evolutionary scientist stifle opposing scientist that have a creation world view.
"Science often investigates problems that require collaboration from those in many different disciplines. "
See above answer.
Schweitzer first publicly announced her discovery in 1993.[10][11] Since then, the claim of discovering soft tissues in a 68 million year old fossil has been disputed by some molecular biologists. Later research[12] published in PLoS ONE (30 July 2008) challenged the claims that the material found is the soft tissue of Tyrannosaurus. The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions, but, upon further inspection and peer review, neither of these reports could be confirmed. The extraction of protein from dinosaur fossils has been confirmed.[13] A more recent study (October 2010) published in PLoS ONE contradicts the conclusion of Kaye and supports Schweitzer's original conclusion.[14]
Tell Us

Paris, TX

#19 Jan 15, 2013
tabby wrote:
<quoted text>
You are proving my point. ANALYSIS of the evidence. What is your definition of credible? Credible to who? There is no standard of credibility. You're using Alice in Wonderland Logic by avoiding discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards. In other words anything I say is wrong, therefore not credible, but whatever you say is right, therefore credible. Give me your "credible" evidence, let's look at.
Exactly right. Line up 25 scientists and ask them how old the earth is, and you'll get at least 15 different answers -- and all of them think their evidence is "credible."
Tell Us

Paris, TX

#20 Jan 15, 2013
And how many scientists got all excited over Piltdown man? And stayed that way for 40 years -- LOL!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 22
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paris Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Make a Sentence Out Of a 5-Letter Word (Aug '10) 8 min Vector aka Victor... 3,197
Pine Bluff Duplex 1 hr Interested 7
chisum football 1 hr cash 1
Nothing great, same old stuff! 1 hr we have a problem 8
Anytime fitness vs. Paris Aquatics 2 hr Grisham 22
Upscale restaurants in Paris? 2 hr Grisham 24
Uber in Paris 4 hr Grisham 26
Qualified Immunity Sat Grisham 78
10 Things You Like, 10 Things You Dislike (Jun '08) Sep 20 The Truth 190

Paris Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Paris Mortgages