Jump to content

Canadians divided over creation and evolution


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 857
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, get REAL!!!!

CLASSIC delusions of credibility!!!

Irrelevancies that have no credible foundation, and no supporting evidence often get ignored. Call it 'resort(ing) to institutionally silencing the opposition' if you wish... but no one is much bothering with the green cheeze moon hypothesis, either.

Edited by Molly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just doesn't add up as some sort of intelligent design. It seems more plausible that certain, yet unknown conditions back then were just right for creating the first living organisms.
Implausible is not the same as impossible. I'm not defending ID because I wholly agree that it is highly unlikely. I'm simply stating that evolution does not necessarily contradict creation. Something can be created then evolve, however unlikely that may be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And speaking of rolling eyes,

One of the dilemmas of science, since they cannot find credence in the pre-biotic soup theory because of the indisputable theory of bio-genesis...so they turned to the theory of panspermia. Of course that doesn't explain how the life from outer space arose in the first place.

Just imagine the collective rolling of eyes heavenward in churches across the land! :lol:

A few points:

1. Just because a theory cannot explain everything does not mean it has no explanatory power.

2. Panspermia is hardly accepted by the majority of abiogenesis researchers out there. In fact, most appear to be quite solidly against it. Space is a harsh harsh place, and the notion that primitive organisms could survive for the necessary millions or billions of years is not terribly compelling.

3. Abiogenesis research has made a number of important strides. We don't have the full picture, but we certainly are moving in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darwin's theories have been de-bunked! Scientists are desperately searching for ways to resuscitate his primitive hypotheses. Failing to breathe life back into his theories, they resort to institutionally silencing the opposition.

You do realize that virtually every biologist in the world accepts evolution, and that, in fact, the number of scientists in any field who reject it are so exceedingly small as to be irrelevant. In fact, even the more vocal critics of evolution like Michael Behe still accept evolution and Common Descent.

Oh, and the theory has changed considerably since Darwin's time. Railing against Darwin in an attempt to attack evolution is like attacking modern cosmology by claiming that Newton oversimplified his laws of motion and gravity.

And no, evolution has not been debunked. That is just a moronic lie that has been told repeatedly for over a century by the foolish and fearful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More and more we will have to allow for much more than the three traditional wounds inflicted on humanity's pride (Copernicus establishing that the earth was not the center of the universe, Darwin proving that mankind developed in an unbroken line from other animal species, and Freud showing that man did not have control over the most important aspects of his own mental processes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the moment imagine that I don't care what you conclude about creationism (I really do care because I believe that finding the truth will be good for the path of your life)...but just imagine for the moment.

All that is expected of science is to admit when its theory falls through. Overwhelming evidence (including Scorpio, the fossil record), shows that Darwin was wrong. Period. Take it like a man. All we ask is that you come up with an alternative! Or not. But don't tell others they're wrong when the evidence against YOUR theories (evolutionism, darwinism etc..) support another point of view.

What are these scientists afraid of? Do they think others will expose the truth? Something they don't like?

Why do they want to hush up oppositions to their beliefs if they believe they're right?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/Canadi...5662/story.html

You can see that with people divided on the issue that it lends itself to trying to get creationism taught in schools.

And if creationism is accepted then why not all rules that separate church and state?

The surprising thing about your statistics is that they're so low. For a hundred years or more public educations in this country has insisted to its students that evolution and the origin of man being the ape, that it's amazing that 59% of Canadians were bright enough to see the truth even though alternative to the theories were suppressed by the institutions that were granted the privilege of training them.

Btw, did Can West mention that while 31% of people who believe in God believe in evolution, we must assume that 69% don't.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Just because a theory cannot explain everything does not mean it has no explanatory power.

Yeah but it doesn't mean it does either.

2. Panspermia is hardly accepted by the majority of abiogenesis researchers out there. In fact, most appear to be quite solidly against it.

Of course ludicrous theories won't be followed by the majority (other than the theory of evolution :lol::lol: ).

The point was the desperation.... their theory of pre-biotic soup was beginning to stink. Knowing that life must come from other life, they assume other life must exists. It begs the question doesn't it. Since it didn't exist here, it must've exist there. I wonder who created that extra-terrestial life. Or what pre-biotic chef created that pre-biotic soup on his planet.

Space is a harsh harsh place, and the notion that primitive organisms could survive for the necessary millions or billions of years is not terribly compelling.

If you can't create life from non-life....time isn't a factor. Neither is harsh.

3. Abiogenesis research has made a number of important strides. We don't have the full picture, but we certainly are moving in that direction.

Okay. Whatever. Try...try...try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the moment imagine that I don't care what you conclude about creationism (I really do care because I believe that finding the truth will be good for the path of your life)...but just imagine for the moment.

All that is expected of science is to admit when its theory falls through. Overwhelming evidence (including Scorpio, the fossil record), shows that Darwin was wrong. Period. Take it like a man. All we ask is that you come up with an alternative! Or not. But don't tell others they're wrong when the evidence against YOUR theories (evolutionism, darwinism etc..) support another point of view.

What are these scientists afraid of? Do they think others will expose the truth? Something they don't like?

Why do they want to hush up oppositions to their beliefs if they believe they're right?

Betsy, just imagine for a minute that you're wrong.

Edited by scorpio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Creationism is true, God is a sh!tty engineer. A jaw too small for our teeth. Eyes that, just as often as not, don't focus properly. An appendix...fingernails....hair (or lack of)....etc, etc, etc.

For an all powerful being capable of trancending time and space...how did it/he/she happen to look like a creature that evolved on a 1G planet? Since we're supposed to be in someone's image n' all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that virtually every biologist in the world accepts evolution, and that, in fact, the number of scientists in any field who reject it are so exceedingly small as to be irrelevant.

I'll accept under protest your assertion that virtually all biologists accept the theory of evolution. Of course, declaring does not a truth make.

The fact is every scientists in the western world was educated in institutions that insisted against all opposition....from the mid 19th century to this day....that the theory of evolution is fact. It's the followers in science community that are perpetuating this myth, not the leaders. The most brilliant minds are leading the way.

In 50 years, the theory of evolution will be a curious , historical embarrassment.

(scientist to other scientists: "remember those funny diagrams in biology 101...the gradual changes from a sea creature crawling on to land, to the 4-legged reptile, to the slopy forheaded guy walking on his hind legs, to the white guy strutting on campus?")

There's still some who believe that the earth is flat, inspite of all the evidence to the contrary.

The photos from outer space to the flat-earth people should be the equivalent of fossil records to the evolutionists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And speaking of rolling eyes,

One of the dilemmas of science, since they cannot find credence in the pre-biotic soup theory because of the indisputable theory of bio-genesis...so they turned to the theory of panspermia. Of course that doesn't explain how the life from outer space arose in the first place.

Just imagine the collective rolling of eyes heavenward in churches across the land! :lol:

From your reference:

If TH Huxley was Darwin’s bulldog, then ID is Dawkins’ basset hound, an organization whose goal is to sniff out weak points in evolutionary theory, almost like a third-party auditor making sure your books are in order. Evolutionists retaliate, showing that Darwin’s challenge has not been met, and the cycle continues, producing as a side effect an even more coherent evolutionary theory.

I'm not really curious about extremist 'creationism', but I do wonder this:

With all of the archeological evidence of a variety of human forms existing on earth at various times in history ... which form of humans are Adam and Eve supposed to be?

Neanderthal? Cro Magnum? or something even earlier?

Just a curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many scientists do I know, Betsy?

Quite a few, actually. Father-in-law had a design role and a working place in the control rooms during the Apollo missions, for one. There's a couple of upper atmospheric phsyicists I count as friends, a bunch of geologists and a whack of paleontologists... a handful who are into nuclear energy. I know a whole collection of soil scientists (my brother being one) , and plant geneticists.... a few chemists.... an increasing number of environmental researchers: son-in-law was engaged in fisheries research until recently for example, and daughter took part in an ecological survey of the Grand Canyon a few years ago... so yeah, I know quite a few scientists.

Good! That explains your statement. For a while I suspected you were a groupie hanging out at scientific conferences. :lol:

Btw, my husband was a meteorological technician. So there. :lol:

But no, I have never met David Suzuki-- though just like you, I know OF him.

Suzuki....okay I won't go there. But I'm glad to hear you don't know him.

Now that I've answered the question, why is it of interest?

Your statement (which I quoted). Read it.

I can think of no scientist who devotes more than a heavy sigh and a roll of the eyes to the creationists, swatting away those falsehoods when they are presented, but not, by any means, seeking them out. They have better things to do, more interesting things to deal with.
Any fool who is at all interested in the world is AWARE of the work of any number of scientists, none of whose lifes work even faintly addresses the ID 'camp', or responds to it at all unless they are directly asked- maybe not even then.

With all due respect, none of those scientists mentioned even remotely is qualified to be answering any of these issues in an objective way. Unless of course, he has been published or has an unbiased interest in the area.

We know of the ordinary scientific communities' opinion of the theories of evolution...as they've evolved.

What we're looking for is someone with some substantive evidence to support or refute this orthodoxy.

The people who actively oppose ID are those who are particularly interested in education and or politics (rather than specifically science) , and don't want our system hijacked (and trashed) by religious zealots, trying to replace evidence-based critical thinking with ignorant, fanciful guesses and resolute faith in myth.

Same back to you. The zealots are the secularists, atheists and run-of-the-mill scientists who have nothing to contribute so continually trying to regurgitate the ludicrous theories of the 19th century. Perhaps it's the floundering ship that makes them feel this way.

Can you show an example of scientists who make a career of debunking ID, to play foil to the likes of Behe?

It seems to me that Behe is the only scientist you know that has an opinion contrary to evolutionists and in support of creationism. I can find many more for you....but we don't need that. All we need is an admission by evolutionists that they're wrong. If they can come up with a better theory, good show! We'll listen.

But this isn't just an academic problem. This is an institutionalized hoax being perpetrated on our unsuspecting youth. Don't be honest with them about creationism if you can't understand it yourself....but at least be honest with your own children about the ridiculous theory that you've allowed our society to dwell under for a hundred and fifty years.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When's the last time religion threw away ideas when new information arose? I like my scientists to continue to seek the truth, rather than having faith in what scientists 2000 years ago said.

Christianity has no need to throw anything away. It was true when it was Spoken. It's true now.

I know....I know...this happened.....that happened....they burned witches....blah-blah-blah.

But that wasn't Christianity. Christianity has no need to throw anything away. It was true when it was Spoken. It's true now.

Science, on the other hand, is only true as long as no one proves it false. Since the theories come from the human mind, the likelihood of them being universal or long-lived is remote. You verify that by your statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity has no need to throw anything away. It was true when it was Spoken. It's true now.

I know....I know...this happened.....that happened....they burned witches....blah-blah-blah.

But that wasn't Christianity. Christianity has no need to throw anything away. It was true when it was Spoken. It's true now.

Science, on the other hand, is only true as long as no one proves it false. Since the theories come from the human mind, the likelihood of them being universal or long-lived is remote. You verify that by your statement.

OK...so in your opinion, how long did it take to 'create' the Earth? When did this event occur? What's a Population II star? What are Quazars?

When faced with a serious medical problem such as heart surgery...would you be trusting in science's theories at that point? Or praying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that doesn't explain how the life from outer space arose in the first place.

Of course, Genesis doesn't explain how the life from outer space (i.e., god) arose in the first place either. In fact, it doesn't even fully address the origin of the universe. It starts with a fully formed god already in place (one who is strangely insecure about his godliness and jealous that you might have other gods). To determine creation, you have to start from the beginning (i.e., if a force created life, what created the force?). Evolutionary theory does that in the primary law that if life can exist, it will exist.

But there are really two questions at work and evolutionary theory only addresses one. It is only concerned with the origin of life, not the origin of the universe (i.e., the time/space continuum). So ultimately the two theories are by no means incompatible, nor are they even really contradictory. God, as described in Genesis, could have created Darwin's evolutionary world in seven god days, and Darwin doesn't even address the origins of our universe, so there's no contradiction there either.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,721
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    paradox34
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • CitzenConcerned earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • SkyHigh earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • SkyHigh went up a rank
      Proficient
    • gatomontes99 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Enthusiast
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...