Science vs. Creationism

[carolinajazz]

I've read about the evidence in a lot of places, one of which is the internet. The crater is still around, as well. There are multiple typoes of evidence that, together, lead to this conclusion.



It doesn't take much education to understand, but a willingness to accept evidence is crucial.

...look, how many "different" theories are there amongst palaeontologists as to how the Dinosaurs disappeared....a half a dozen or so, at least? That's all I'm saying. Yes, they disappeared suddenly. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.

 

[carolinajazz]

Show my eye witness documentation for creationism, lol.

...the eye witness "documentation" for there being a Creator is clearly seen or evident by the intricate design and complexity of the Universe and all living things on this planet! As scientists and biologists continue their studies in these fields they have to draw one conclusion and one conclusion ONLY! Here's just a small example: Years ago, British mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Sir James Jeans wrote that in the light of advancing scientific knowledge, “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” He also stated that “the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician” and that it provides “evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds.”

Or as the Bible nicely puts it at Romans 1:20 "For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable!"

Now, if your struggling with the acceptance of a Creator because of the well-known abuses and corruptions that blacken the history of many religions, that is no sound reason for disbelieving in a Creator! “The excesses and atrocities of organized religion,” says Roy Abraham Varghese in his preface to Antony Flew’s book There Is a God, “have no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God, just as the threat of nuclear proliferation has no bearing on the question of whether E=mc2.”

(how about THAT for "illustrations fit the material?)

 

[carolinajazz]

Next you're going to tell us that Jesus was crucified on a telephone pole.

....no, an upright stake....NOT a cross!

 

[carolinajazz]

Will you please answer my question?

See Colton's quote on page 12.

 

[MVP]

... That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time.

Absolute bulls.... Plenty of fossil ancestors of dinosaurs and plenty of even today's living creatures closely related to dinosaurs. I bet you are eating one every day unless you are vegan.

 

[MVP]

...the eye witness "documentation" for there being a Creator is clearly seen or evident by the intricate design and complexity of the Universe and all living things on this planet!

That's just giving up on not understanding it and blaming it on "higher power". More like loser's mentality then any kind of evidence. Sorry, fail again.

 

[MVP]

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners. Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.

In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific. Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has also denounced intelligent design.

Not sure why we even have this thread. Creationism vs Evolution is like arguing that Earth is flat vs round.

 

[One Brow]

...look, how many "different" theories are there amongst palaeontologists as to how the Dinosaurs disappeared....a half a dozen or so, at least?

"How the dinosuars disappeared" isn't a big enough topic to merit being a theory, so technically, none.

The consensus is that the primary event was the meteor.

That's all I'm saying. Yes, they disappeared suddenly. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time.

There are fossil links to the beginning of the dinosaurs. There are still dinosuars living today (we call them birds).

Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.

Not in the slightest.

 

[carolinajazz]

Absolute bulls.... Plenty of fossil ancestors of dinosaurs and plenty of even today's living creatures closely related to dinosaurs. I bet you are eating one every day unless you are vegan.

...nah, not a vegetarian, in fact, I love meat, especially pork! However, to date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200*million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. The fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.

Your belief that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor....is despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is a MAJOR act of “faith.”

 

[carolinajazz]

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.
Not sure why we even have this thread. Creationism vs Evolution is like arguing that Earth is flat vs round.

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macro-evolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion or the Bible.”

If you are to accept the teaching of macro-evolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new!

Now, let me address your statement that "Creationism vs Evolution" is like arguing that Earth is flat vs round! First of all, I am not a "Creationist", that is one who believes God created the earth, universe, stars and everything on this planet in six 24 hour days...and that's NOT what the Bible teaches, either!

There are others who reason the same way you do! For example some have said “We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.” It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally.

These same evolutionists admit that “debate rages about theories of evolution.” But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity or that the earth is flat or round? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

 

[carolinajazz]

There are fossil links to the beginning of the dinosaurs. There are still dinosuars living today (we call them birds).

....hey, Barney Rubble! How do you figure that "dinosaurs are still living today....we call them birds" when dinosaurs were REPTILES and Birds and not? Dinosaurs....cold blooded. Birds.....warm blooded. Dinosaurs/reptiles have huge, powerfully built, scaled and armor-plated bodies, with their gigantic jaws, meaty, bony, powerful tails and weathered, wrinkled, thick leather-like hides! Birds, on the other hand, have tiny, fragile, porous AIRFRAME skeletal structures! They have rapid heartbeat with rapid metabolisms! They are about as FAR from being the "closest living relatives" to our birds as they can be! Might as well say that the butterfly evolved from a rhinoceros!

 

[babe]

I can also simultaneously believe in astrology and God but that doesn't make astrology true.

Sorry but a story that relies on accidents and randomness is in sharp contrast to showing "the hand of God," but I don't have a problem with the pseudo-science of Darwinism because I believe in God. I have a problem with it because I believe in science.

Discoveries in molecular biology destroyed Darwin's "gradual, successive, slight modification" story. There is really no science-based place to go from there.

I'm giving Pearl and "A" for the course because of the position taken here.

When people invoke meaning to nonsense and try to insist it is valid because one or two letters in each "word" is "correct", I won't call it "language". When people insist that the "meaning is there" even if all the words are horribly misspelled, I won't call it "smart".

What we have today is a whole generation raised on phony science who fundamentally don't know what science is, or was, or should be. . . . . not even the professors.

"Darwinism", like the idiot cult of Einstein worshipers' "time travel", is not scientific at all. "Evolution" as it commonly is understood is not science either.

Science is the accumulation of valid knowledge based on observation, demonstration, and connection of ideas with results. While I have to admit there is some utility for "extrapolation" and "inference" based on our measured or demonstrated data in forming theories, theories that extend those ideas beyond our knowledge base is not what I call "proven", or "science". It shouldn't be the job of a scientist to speculate, or develop grand theories of the universe that conform to his or her special prejudices and proclivities.

You don't need to "believe" in "Darwinism" or "evolution" to disbelieve in God. Until someone can demonstrate God, and lay out a procedure anyone can follow and obtain the same result, "God" is not something science can evaluate or take a position on, fer or agin.

Neither can science determine the origin of life, in my opinion. No one has demonstrated the process, or given us a method whereby we can reproduce the same results... . . anyone who thus infers or extrapolates form known relations between life forms is not talking "science" but speculating on probable relationships. A person who disbelieves in any purposed or "intelligent" behaviors inherent in nature is fundamentally also disbelieving in "science" itself, as well as their own purposes or intelligence, because the very act of any person trying to act on purpose or intelligence is thereby proving that the phenomena exists in nature, whether there is any putative kind of God at all, or even whether there is any putative discipline called "science" that we can place any trust in.

In one sentence. . . . .

The more you strain at the gnat to disprove your phobia for "God", the more you swallow the camel that science is pure nonsense, and prove you're an idiot.

OK, that was hyberbolic.

Here's the better way. . . .

There's no "scientific" way to disprove anything you can't define. . . . like "God". . . . nor any scientific way you can prove anything you can't define. The terms "Darwinism" and "evolution", invoke a meaning to observations or correlations in denying "God", and that's the only reason some of you care to discuss the subject of this thread.