lordworshipper
Free minded rational believer
For my own sanity, I tend to keep my religion seperate from my scientific reality, otherwise It'll all fall like a house of cards. Not a creationist.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For my own sanity, I tend to keep my religion seperate from my scientific reality, otherwise It'll all fall like a house of cards. Not a creationist.
Why? Ever see the variation in domesticated species? There is more distinct variation in those breeds then there are in closely related species.
This doesn't point towards evolution. It points towards natural selection.
Everything from new colouration, different bone structure, and even new organs have all been documented where none existed before. So why again is macro-evolution impossible?
The way all these 'evidences' are going it seems that they are merely suggesting evolution at best. It takes imagination and a whole lot of easy believing in order to fill in the gaps. I won't say it's impossible. I say it's improbable.
Things evolve (changes in allele frequencies among populations over time), that is a fact. The implications of this and the reasons why are the theory part.
The implications of this and the reasons why it occurs do not prove the theory. It suggests that the theory could have been reality if you closed your eyes and imagine.
ToE isn't a theory of origins, thats Abiogenisis which although well supported, isn't nearly as polished as ToE.
As in origins of species
We are also able to view the evolution of entirely new species. The boundaries between micro and macro evolution are arbitrary with the distinction being one of semantics.
It's not semantics. It's a logical leap, requiring several assumptions that cannot be proven, only postulated. It requires induction of the highest degree. Have you ever seen evidence of a transitional species? How does a transitional species survive? What are the chances of a transitional species finding a mate that doesn't view it as an outcast? What are the chances that the trait of that particular species will pass on? Factor in climate change, predatory dangers, and lack of food - wouldn't the odd one out pass away before he can pass on his genes?
That being said, speciation is not equal to evolution.
That is only one stream of evidence among many independent streams that corroborate ToE.
Corroboration does not equal justification. ToE cannot be classified as a fact.
Horse evolution
Whale evolution
Human evolution
Three near complete chains.
But still incomplete.
Name one.
Gravity.
False. The reason why Creationism isn't accepted academically is because it isn't falsifiable. There is no conspiracy to discredit creationism, it just fails to follow the scientific method.
Creationism can be falsified. Show us a complete chain of fossils, together with transitional species.
Why? Ever see the variation in domesticated species? There is more distinct variation in those breeds then there are in closely related species.
This doesn't point towards evolution. It points towards natural selection.
Everything from new colouration, different bone structure, and even new organs have all been documented where none existed before. So why again is macro-evolution impossible?
The way all these 'evidences' are going it seems that they are merely suggesting evolution at best. It takes imagination and a whole lot of easy believing in order to fill in the gaps. I won't say it's impossible. I say it's improbable.
Things evolve (changes in allele frequencies among populations over time), that is a fact. The implications of this and the reasons why are the theory part.
The implications of this and the reasons why it occurs do not prove the theory. It suggests that the theory could have been reality if you closed your eyes and imagine.
ToE isn't a theory of origins, thats Abiogenisis which although well supported, isn't nearly as polished as ToE.
As in origins of species
We are also able to view the evolution of entirely new species. The boundaries between micro and macro evolution are arbitrary with the distinction being one of semantics.
It's not semantics. It's a logical leap, requiring several assumptions that cannot be proven, only postulated. It requires induction of the highest degree. Have you ever seen evidence of a transitional species? How does a transitional species survive? What are the chances of a transitional species finding a mate that doesn't view it as an outcast? What are the chances that the trait of that particular species will pass on? Factor in climate change, predatory dangers, and lack of food - wouldn't the odd one out pass away before he can pass on his genes?
That being said, speciation is not equal to evolution.
That is only one stream of evidence among many independent streams that corroborate ToE.
Corroboration does not equal justification. ToE cannot be classified as a fact.
Horse evolution
Whale evolution
Human evolution
Three near complete chains.
But still incomplete.
Name one.
Gravity.
False. The reason why Creationism isn't accepted academically is because it isn't falsifiable. There is no conspiracy to discredit creationism, it just fails to follow the scientific method.
Creationism can be falsified. Show us a complete chain of fossils, together with transitional species.
There are no anomalies with creationism. That still wouldn't convince you that creationism is true. If it does, yippee
But that aside, I think the fundamental perspective is this: do you believe in God? Do you want to believe in God? Are you looking for proof that God exists? I see creationism and evolution as side arguments. It's small. Do you have God in your life? That's huge. I would rather spend time telling you why God exists rather than why creationism is true, because the former would easily convince you of the latter.
Key mechanics might work. It doesn't mean the theory is true.
Just because a theory has existed for the past couple of centuries doesn't mean that it is true.
Nobody said that transitional species popped out magically. The fact that they need to have a gradual introduction into a species population means that an odd one out in every population group must first exist. This is an assumption on my part, correct me if I'm wrong.
Scientific theories cannot be confirmed, only corroborated. Since it can only be corroborated it can be false in future. My error with gravity proves that point.
There are no anomalies with creationism. That still wouldn't convince you that creationism is true. If it does, yippee
But that aside, I think the fundamental perspective is this: do you believe in God? Do you want to believe in God? Are you looking for proof that God exists? I see creationism and evolution as side arguments. It's small. Do you have God in your life? That's huge. I would rather spend time telling you why God exists rather than why creationism is true, because the former would easily convince you of the latter.
Well, that's false. We've found that God is real. Creationism takes into account of that. It also predicts that humans won't evolve into a berdoku.
If you're saying that creationism shouldn't belong in a science class, well, that's fine. It's not scientific in the traditional sort of way. Evolution should be taught, and taught well. One of the main ideas that needs to be put across very clearly is this: it is just a theory. All true scientists acknowledge that.
All true scientists would laugh at you for using the word "Theory" in that context (yet again).
Wait, when was God found to be objectively real? As for the latter statement, that's nice, ToE says something similar.Well, that's false. We've found that God is real. Creationism takes into account of that. It also predicts that humans won't evolve into a berdoku.
And everyone who has ever passed a post-secondary science class knows that "Theory" in science is the highest form of certainty. What's your point?If you're saying that creationism shouldn't belong in a science class, well, that's fine. It's not scientific in the traditional sort of way. Evolution should be taught, and taught well. One of the main ideas that needs to be put across very clearly is this: it is just a theory. All true scientists acknowledge that.
One that Creationists make given that no biologists has ever said a single-cell organism evolved into a man.I like the froggie.
But that aside, well yea. Natural selection works, mutation happens, evolution of a single-cell creature to a complex human being isn't my piece of cake (it's a logical leap my friend).
And evidenteriay. The scientists publish their findings along with meticulous methodology so their work can be replicated by disinterested parties. Hence the falsification part. That's why its important.Might be yours, but that's for you to decide. You are persuaded by the lack of direct falsification and the testimony of scientists. It is rational.
You realize a person can use this form of "knowledge" and apply it to Bigfoots, UFOs, other deities, and even more absurd ideas like Santa Clause right?We can debate all day long but the fact is this: I know that God exists. You don't. I cannot change that. I cannot prove to you that God exists. I can show you bible verses. I can tell you about my own experience. I can pray for you. But in the end it's knowledge by revelation. I can't use a priori or a posteriori reasoning to get you to believe it. You see, if God choose to hide it from you, then you can't see it. It's not my call.
Okay, I have to as, what is a 'kind'? What makes 'cattle-kind' different from 'beast-kind'? How is 'kind' even as useful classification?But about creationism, consider this: the fact that animals exists, one after their own kind, corroborates with biblical account. That is proof enough for me. Going by your logic, it doesn't disprove the genesis account, so why should I doubt it?
But that aside, well yea. Natural selection works, mutation happens, evolution of a single-cell creature to a complex human being isn't my piece of cake (it's a logical leap my friend).
But about creationism, consider this: the fact that animals exists, one after their own kind, corroborates with biblical account. That is proof enough for me. Going by your logic, it doesn't disprove the genesis account, so why should I doubt it?
Not really, it's exactly the same process just over a very long period of time.
If you could classify what you mean by "Kind" that'd be helpful
Wait, when was God found to be objectively real? As for the latter statement, that's nice, ToE says something similar.
And everyone who has ever passed a post-secondary science class knows that "Theory" in science is the highest form of certainty. What's your point?
One that Creationists make given that no biologists has ever said a single-cell organism evolved into a man.
And evidenteriay. The scientists publish their findings along with meticulous methodology so their work can be replicated by disinterested parties. Hence the falsification part. That's why its important.
You realize a person can use this form of "knowledge" and apply it to Bigfoots, UFOs, other deities, and even more absurd ideas like Santa Clause right?
Okay, I have to as, what is a 'kind'? What makes 'cattle-kind' different from 'beast-kind'? How is 'kind' even as useful classification?
That said, the logical impossibilities and scientific absurdities in Genesis should be enough to discredit it alone. Examples like the Moon having its own light, or nigh and day existing prior to the creation of light sources etc.
Allow me to ask a question. If anyone can answer this question, they can answer this debate.
You find a ring laying on a table. You pick it up. Where does the ring begin? Where does it end?
No one really knows where the ring begins or ends; we can guess and estimate where the ring might have began in its production, but only the creator knows where it truly began.
Despite whatever evidence we may find, i don't think we'll really be able to scientifically(ie rationally) discover how we came into existence, or where we go after we die or any of those kinds of questions. We may come close, we may come ever so close, but i don't believe we'll find it. Should we give up looking? No, but we should give up throwing out facts like "science has proven...." because science is constantly changing and growing. I guess i like to take a stats approach to science.....we can either reject or fail to reject a hypothesis, but we cannot say for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether or not Creationism is real. We can choose to believe or not to believe.
Just my two cents.
Wherever you begin the measurement. "Beginning" is a conceptual tool wholly artificial.Allow me to ask a question. If anyone can answer this question, they can answer this debate.
You find a ring laying on a table. You pick it up. Where does the ring begin? Where does it end?
Or a metallurgist...No one really knows where the ring begins or ends; we can guess and estimate where the ring might have began in its production, but only the creator knows where it truly began.
We can and have, people just don't like the answers and choose to ignore them.Despite whatever evidence we may find, i don't think we'll really be able to scientifically(ie rationally) discover how we came into existence, or where we go after we die or any of those kinds of questions. We may come close, we may come ever so close, but i don't believe we'll find it. Should we give up looking?
Yes you can when you demonstrate the positive claims are false, which has been done ad nauseaum.No, but we should give up throwing out facts like "science has proven...." because science is constantly changing and growing. I guess i like to take a stats approach to science.....we can either reject or fail to reject a hypothesis, but we cannot say for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether or not Creationism is real. We can choose to believe or not to believe.
Yes it can, here is a listAgree!
Let's make known two facts; 1. Evolution (the changing of one species into another) can not be viewed and proven in science!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?