Creation versus evolution debate

Creation versus evolution debate

There are 270 comments on the Examiner.com story from May 14, 2012, titled Creation versus evolution debate. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

On Saturday May 12, the Museum of Creation and Earth History in Santee, Calif. held a debate featuring Creation vs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Rio Rancho, NM

#21 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting response, you and I haven't even debated anything before you jumped to the conclusion that you have a much greater understanding of evolution than I do. Before we get into this further I'm curious to know something. Which of these Evolutionary models do you support and please explain why do you support that one over the other 3.
A) Multi-regionalism Model.
B) Out of African Model.
C) African hybridization-and-replacement Model.
D) Assimilation (or partial-replacement)Model.
I'm not familiar with these arguments. I never went to the seventh grade. Please describe each model clearly and simply so I can understand each in detail.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#22 May 21, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There are both theists and atheists. However their theological opinions are irrelevant to the validity of scientific concepts.
<quoted text>
Concepts like abiogenesis could only be purported through means of having a pre-determined notion that an outside agent had no involvement in the origins of life.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And how is that exactly?
Deliberate selection + Random mutation + Time = Scrabble
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the above, for one. Perhaps you could clarify.
I don't see anything above in my previous comments stating that I reject evolution, so where are you getting this from?

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#23 May 21, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not familiar with these arguments. I never went to the seventh grade. Please describe each model clearly and simply so I can understand each in detail.
Ummm no. You're on a computer with an abundant amount of information at your fingertips, please do not be lazy.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24 May 21, 2012
Ah, I see. Goddidit with magic it is then.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#25 May 21, 2012
The Dude wrote:
Ah, I see. Goddidit with magic it is then.
I'll take your remarks which convey's an unappealing appearance of ignorance as you being stumped. Such ignorance can and should be corrected.

Don't take offense to that, I'm just trying to help you out.
HGW

Norwalk, CA

#26 May 21, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
While many have issues with debates like this, usually in how it can lend credence to Creationism where no credence should be given. I think the key to educating the public on science and evolution in particular are debates such as these.
Ignoring Creationists certainly hasn't made them go away. We need to address the issues in public forums. We all know that we are never going to convince a hard-core Creationist, but what about the people who aren't hard-core yet? Ignoring the situation because it might be seem as to give an unearned level of legitimacy will only help harden Creationists, especially if the only way they can hear a countervailing opinion is by taking a biology class -- and how many are going to be willing to do that?
Scientists should sharpen up their debating skills and engage more! Address their comments head-on, show the audience that science has actual evidence on it's side. You don't even have to address the religious issues, just address the claims. Show why the world isn't 6000 years old, why is evolution on of the most strongly supported theories in science, why the three stooges ...oops, sorry wrong post!
But you get my drift?
To believe in your theory, you must not believe in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Matter/Energy can neither be created nor destroyed). The scientific theory that you choose to agree with is a matter of faith. Evolution is possible with the first law of thermodynamics, but the building blocks (matter/energy) are the effect of breaking the first law of thermodynamics.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#27 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take your remarks which convey's an unappealing appearance of ignorance as you being stumped. Such ignorance can and should be corrected.
Don't take offense to that, I'm just trying to help you out.
Nerd, seriously... you are in WAY over your head and virtually EVERYTHING you said about evolution in your first post is BS.

The question with the other, more experienced posters here is aways, "OK, who wants to take (i.e. waste) the time trying to communicate to this next fundamentalist Christian %$#@?"
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#28 May 21, 2012
HGW wrote:
<quoted text>
To believe in your theory, you must not believe in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Matter/Energy can neither be created nor destroyed). The scientific theory that you choose to agree with is a matter of faith. Evolution is possible with the first law of thermodynamics, but the building blocks (matter/energy) are the effect of breaking the first law of thermodynamics.
We accept a theory because of the EVIDENCE, not faith.

And what does the Theory of biological Evolution have to do with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? Please explain in detail.
HGW

Norwalk, CA

#29 May 21, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
We accept a theory because of the EVIDENCE, not faith.
And what does the Theory of biological Evolution have to do with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? Please explain in detail.
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The principle extends to mass, as related by Einstein's famous equation E = mc2. This is a problem from an evolutionary perspective, since it needs the existence of energy to come into existence naturally, which is equally just as unprovable as God creating (i.e. FAITH)
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#30 May 21, 2012
HGW wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The principle extends to mass, as related by Einstein's famous equation E = mc2. This is a problem from an evolutionary perspective, since it needs the existence of energy to come into existence naturally, which is equally just as unprovable as God creating (i.e. FAITH)
You DO realize that the TOE has NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe OR the origin of biological life, right?

The TOE simply says that life (HOWEVER it initially arose) subsequently evolves by means of genetic variation plus natural selection.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#31 May 21, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Nerd, seriously... you are in WAY over your head and virtually EVERYTHING you said about evolution in your first post is BS.
Which part is BS? Since you make the assertion that everything I stated in my initial post was BS then it shouldn't be hard to pick out one statement from my first post that demonstrates this BS.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#33 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take your remarks which convey's an unappealing appearance of ignorance as you being stumped.
But of course.
The Nerd wrote:
Such ignorance can and should be corrected.
Don't take offense to that, I'm just trying to help you out.
Oh you did. You're a fundie pretending not to be a fundie. We get it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#34 May 21, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You DO realize that the TOE has NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe OR the origin of biological life, right?
Yup, in fact he already admitted it.

Kinda makes ya wonder why the heck he was babbling on about thermodynamics and 'faith' in the first place though, dunnit?(shrug)

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#35 May 21, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh you did. You're a fundie pretending not to be a fundie. We get it.
As if there is no such thing as an atheist fundie. Richard Dawkins ring a bell?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#36 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting response, you and I haven't even debated anything before you jumped to the conclusion that you have a much greater understanding of evolution than I do. Before we get into this further I'm curious to know something. Which of these Evolutionary models do you support and please explain why do you support that one over the other 3.
A) Multi-regionalism Model.
B) Out of African Model.
C) African hybridization-and-replacement Model.
D) Assimilation (or partial-replacement)Model.
Actually I have been emjoying reading about all of them. There is evidence for each. My understanding is that A and B are sort of like the extremes, with C and D being somewhere in the middle. 3 of the 4 focus on origins within Africa. The science is interesting.

What I was disagreeing with you was your insistence that science is trying to eliminate God from the explanation. Not true. Science it looking for real, usable explanations, not fantasy stories. Tell me, how many scientific advances have been based on Creationism? No, not science advances made by believers in one religious tradition or another. But advances that is based on Creationism? Should be easy if science is covering up so much evidence. Don't just take swipes at evolution, support your own contentions.

Evolution is the most widely supported scientific theory, mainly because of all the attacks made on it. The reason it survives is not some muli-national, multi-generational conspiracy. It survives and continues to grow stronger because it explains the evidence.

One last question for you, how about you give us a short list of all this evidence that science is supposedly ignoring.

There try those two questions. I think that would be more interesting in this forum than trying to debate the pros and cons of the various origin models.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#37 May 21, 2012
llDayo wrote:
<quoted text>
Which leads to another issue of scientists having to set aside doing scientific research and testing to combat ignorance. That may be a large reason why they aren't so active.
True, but don't they have an interest in combating ignorance? What will the future bring if the future 'scientists' are all drunk on Discovery Institute kool-aid? How far back will science be set if the very people who have the knowledge aren't involved in the future?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#38 May 21, 2012
HGW wrote:
<quoted text>
To believe in your theory, you must not believe in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Matter/Energy can neither be created nor destroyed). The scientific theory that you choose to agree with is a matter of faith. Evolution is possible with the first law of thermodynamics, but the building blocks (matter/energy) are the effect of breaking the first law of thermodynamics.
No, by your apparent idea of thermodynamics, neither a plant could possibly grow, nor could a fetus mature into a baby and be born.

Now most Creationists try and use the 2nd Law when making claims against evolutionary theory. Using the 1st law is interesting, but you miss the most basic idea. Is the Earth a closed system? I don't believe the 1st law applies at all.

Here's the part you should be most happy about. Evolutionary theory requires no belief. Like other scientific theories, it works whether you believe it or not. Do you float off the Earth when saying you don't believe the Theory of Gravity?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#39 May 21, 2012
HGW wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The principle extends to mass, as related by Einstein's famous equation E = mc2. This is a problem from an evolutionary perspective, since it needs the existence of energy to come into existence naturally, which is equally just as unprovable as God creating (i.e. FAITH)
No, the 1st law says that the energy of an isolated system is constant. Please note the use of the word 'isolated'. It's also often expressed as a closed system. If you are going to define things, at least get them right.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#40 May 21, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I have been emjoying reading about all of them. There is evidence for each. My understanding is that A and B are sort of like the extremes, with C and D being somewhere in the middle. 3 of the 4 focus on origins within Africa. The science is interesting.
I agree that each model is very interesting, however the out of Africa model is my cup of tea.
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
What I was disagreeing with you was your insistence that science is trying to eliminate God from the explanation. Not true.
Not sure why you were disagreeing with a question but whatever.
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, how many scientific advances have been based on Creationism? No, not science advances made by believers in one religious tradition or another. But advances that is based on Creationism?
I don't think you're asking the right question here but from this perspective then that would imply that all scientific advancement is a direct extension of Creationism (Considering creationism ad-hears to an agent existing transcendent space/time and has authored life on this planet.) This very same outside agent who has endowed us with the ability to perform experiments, perform thought-provoking tests and engage in complex mathematics. Advance cognitive abilities didn't just pop out of thing air, they came from the creator.
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Should be easy if science is covering up so much evidence.
Evolution is the most widely supported scientific theory, mainly because of all the attacks made on it.
I don't have anything against evolution because I subscribe to it. I just don't subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm which states that anatomically modern day-man and the great apes share a common ancestor.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#41 May 21, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
One last question for you, how about you give us a short list of all this evidence that science is supposedly ignoring.
How about I just give you one point of concern for now as to alleviate any confusion that may arise from several different topics being replied to.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n73...

I'll give you something recent. I found this interesting news item which was based on a paper published in the March 8 2012 edition of nature and its' work was reported on by a team of about 60 researchers who has spent 4 years producing a rough draft sequence of the gorilla genome.

A big part of the paper was a comparisons analysis of the gorilla genome in light of the genome of the other great apes.

Why are the researchers doing a (SNIPS) comparisons of the genome, gorilla vs human here?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min Regolith Based Li... 83,153
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 36 min marksman11 164,693
Tennepithecus ate a pescatarian diet. 12 hr Science 1
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 12 hr Eagle 12 - 135
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 14 hr Dogen 2,575
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 hr Dogen 223,009
Evolution is boring as Hell 17 hr Eagle 12 - 11
More from around the web