Opinion on a creation v evolution summary

sfs · May 26, 2015

Not_By_Chance said:
"
But we've learn't a lot since then and the more knowledge we have, the more it confirms the impossibility of evolution.

Yes, we've learned a lot since then. What we've learned has so overwhelmingly confirmed evolution(*) that it is now one of the best supported ideas in science and the backbone of biology. It's an essential tool for understanding life and countless scientists use it successfully every day. Creationism, on the other hand, contributes nothing: it predicts nothing, explains nothing and guides no research. Creationists write books and make videos; biologists sequence genomes and find the causes for disease.

(*) By which I mean biological evolution.

RickG · May 26, 2015

Not_By_Chance said:
But we've learn't a lot since then and the more knowledge we have, the more it confirms the impossibility of evolution. It's interesting but despite all the hype, a very significant proportion of the population in the UK apparently do not believe in the theory of evolution and of course, the proportion is much greater in the USA.

And just what "scientific" knowledge since Charles Kingsley's time do you have to present that confirms the impossibility of evolution?

Subduction Zone · May 26, 2015

Not_By_Chance said:
"There is no "Achilles Heel" to evolution that creationists have found yet. If you have not noticed it is still extremely alive. And no, most creationists hate the truth."

Just watch the film - there are apparently plenty. Or are these people all liars as has been suggested? Why would they lie? What could possibly be their motive? Why would Ken Ham build a creation museum and now a life-size Ark if he wasn't convinced of the truth of scripture? He's been to my local church in the UK and I found him to be very sincere. In addition, all the creation scientists and presenters I have watched seem very genuine to me in their passion for truth. I have no trouble in accepting what they say. Given that we only have a choice to believe in God's word or man's ideas, I prefer to stay with God.

OK, I've said my piece - off now to watch a whole load more creation videos (just found the excellent site by Mike Riddle, who is a great speaker and has produced some wonderful DVDs on the creation/evolution debate, including "4 Power Questions to ask an Evolutionist," highly recommended).

Ken Ham is either an ignorant fool or leaching off of them. People can be honest and be fools. Did you notice that the one "creation scientist" that you mentioned, Spike, was not a scientist at all? His education was only that of an electrical engineer undergrad. That means he is totally out of his depths when he talks about physics. He may be earnest, but he is earnestly foolish.

There is a reason that peer review is the bare minimum one must pass for new ideas.

Jimmy D · May 27, 2015

Hi everyone, normally I just enjoy lurking but I couldn't let this one go....

"a very significant proportion of the population in the UK apparently do not believe in the theory of evolution"

Steady on there mate, the only people I've ever met who don't believe in the TOE are the Jehovahs Witnesses, bless them. I doubt you can back up that claim with facts.

(We're very proud of Darwin round here, I drive by his old house most days)

lesliedellow · May 27, 2015

Jimmy D said:
"a very significant proportion of the population in the UK apparently do not believe in the theory of evolution"

Pardon? You would be hard pressed to find one
person in my (evangelical) church who didn't accept evolution, and you would be even more hard pressed to find one amongst the apatheistic majority of the population.

About 3% of Christians in Europe are creationists.

Jimmy D · May 27, 2015

'Not By Chance' said it, I was quoting him, unfortunately it was my first post on here and I hadn't figured out the quote function (I still haven't by the way). I agree with you Leslie and it was that statement that provoked me to stop lurking.

AV1611VET · May 27, 2015

lesliedellow said:
About 3% of Christians in Europe are creationists.

Europe is where we believe the Antichrist is going to come from.

Subduction Zone · May 27, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Europe is where we believe the Antichrist is going to come from.

Wrong, Europe is where you believe that the AntiChrist is going to come from.

When did you graduate to a "we"?

AV1611VET · May 27, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
Wrong, Europe is where you believe that the AntiChrist is going to come from.

Where do you believe he is going to come from?

When did you graduate to a "we"?

When I joined that subset of the human race that believes likewise.

Not_By_Chance · May 28, 2015

RickG said:
And just what "scientific" knowledge since Charles Kingsley's time do you have to present that confirms the impossibility of evolution?

The complexity of the living cell has only in recent years, been really appreciated. Let me ask you a question if I may - what do you estimate is the probability of the first living cell having arisen by chance?

RickG · May 28, 2015

Not_By_Chance said:
The complexity of the living cell has only in recent years, been really appreciated. Let me ask you a question if I may - what do you estimate is the probability of the first living cell having arisen by chance?

I gather you are inquiring about abiogenesis, that being the case it only has to happen once. However, I think most layman have an incorrect understanding of abiogenesis. The first problem is to think it says all life came from a "single" organism. That would be incorrect, rather a population of organisms of which abiogenesis would have occurred many times and has done so throughout geologic time and is still occurring. Another incorrect assumption is to think that it was a sudden occurrence. Think in terms of thousands of years, though it could be shorter, but certainly not in the time of a lab experiment.

AV1611VET · May 28, 2015

RickG said:
I gather you are inquiring about abiogenesis, that being the case it only has to happen once. However, I think most layman have an incorrect understanding of abiogenesis. The first problem is to think it says all life came from a "single" organism. That would be incorrect, rather a population of organisms of which abiogenesis would have occurred many times and has done so throughout geologic time and is still occurring. Another incorrect assumption is to think that it was a sudden occurrence. Think in terms of thousands of years, though it could be shorter, but certainly not in the time of a lab experiment.

According to Chuck Missler's video, abiogenesis doesn't occur on store shelves where hundreds of millions of chances are given to do so.

RickG · May 28, 2015

AV1611VET said:
According to Chuck Missler's video, abiogenesis doesn't occur on store shelves where hundreds of millions of chances are given to do so.

So. And ........?

AV1611VET · May 28, 2015

RickG said:
So. And ........?

So and I'll assume you're wrong.

RickG · May 28, 2015

AV1611VET said:
So and I'll assume you're wrong.

I would expect nothing less from a layman with an overt disrespect for science.

AV1611VET · May 28, 2015

RickG said:
I would expect nothing less from a layman with an overt disrespect for science.

Let me be more specific.

I'll put my eggs in Chuck Missler's basket, not yours.

If you think I'm wrong, then you convince Mr Missler and ask Mr Missler to convince me.

After all, he researched this and made a video out of it.

You know? did some field work?

I have to ask you though:

If you think he is wrong, are you saying that abiogenesis does indeed occur on store shelves?

That jar of peanut butter he opened, for example, did it have cooties in it that never existed before in the universe?

And if, perchance, not that particular jar, does my local supermarket have cooties that sprang up by way of abiogenesis while I slept?

RickG · May 28, 2015

AV1611VET said:
After all, he researched this and made a video out of it.

I see, yet another creationist with no background on a subject, much less expertise, presenting himself as an authority to a non-science audience with the intention of influencing them, knowing they will not do any fact checking. Bearing false witness comes to mind.

AV1611VET · May 28, 2015

RickG said:
I see, yet another creationist with no background on a subject, much less expertise, presenting himself as an authority to a non-science audience with the intention of influencing them, knowing they will not do any fact checking. Bearing false witness comes to mind.

Kinda like the weatherman telling me abiogenesis occurs on store shelves and expecting me to believe it, isn't it?

RickG · May 28, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Kinda like the weatherman telling me abiogenesis occurs on store shelves and expecting me to believe it, isn't it?

Yup! That would describe your source. It is what the scientific community refers to as "intellectual dishonesty". That is, presenting only the information that "appears" to support ones position, while ignoring all information that does not support that position. That my friend, is the reason I deplore "Creation Science".

AV1611VET · May 28, 2015

RickG said:
Yup! That would describe your source. It is what the scientific community refers to as "intellectual dishonesty". That is, presenting only the information that "appears" to support ones position, while ignoring all information that does not support that position. That my friend, is the reason I deplore "Creation Science".

Well, for the record, even before he made that video, I didn't believe in abiogenesis.

You apparently do.

And if it helps any, I don't care for the term "Creation Science" myself.

Opinion on a creation v evolution summary

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads